HomeMy WebLinkAbout031390 CC AgendaTffMBCUL~CZT¥ ~CZL
MARC~ X3; 3.990
Hext in Order:
Ordinance: No. 90-04
Resolution: No. 90-25
CALL TO ORDBR:
Invocation:
Flag Salute:
Pastor Roger Brewer
New Covenant Fellowship
ROLL CALL:
Birdsa11, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTH
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can
address the Council on items that are not listed on the
Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink ,,Req~2est To Spes~t! form should be filled out
and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state
¥gUr name and address.
For all other agenda items a -Request To Spea~" 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.
~NSBNT CALENDAR
NOT~C~ TO THB PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered
to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call
vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items to be
removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
2/agends~31390 1 03/O9/9O
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve minutes of February 13, 1990 as mailed.
o
Public Use Permit 679 - Trinity Christian Church
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file Notice of Decision for the case
acted on by the Planning Commission on January 31,
1990.
Resolution &DDrOvina P&vmont of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMBCUL~; &PPROVING THE IFARRANT REGISTER,
DATED M]LRCH 13, 1990
4. Resolution Denvtna Plot Plan No. 1168
A resolution denying a Plot Plan to permit construction of an
outdoor 9dvertising sign·
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO* 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TRMBCUL~ DBNYINQ PLOT PLZdl NO. 1168 TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOORADVERTIGING
DISPLAY NBARRAN~O CALIFORNIA RO~DAND FRONT
STREBT
COUNCIL BUSINESS
0
P&rcel MaD 23426 and Tract 23160
Report to City Council by Developer Nick Tavaglione
2/eget~J~3't390 2 03/09/9O
Ro~Et froa City of Teaaoula Traffic comittae
Report from Sgt. Ron Roberts, CHP
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Authorize the use of non-sworn traffic directors
for local traffic control at 1-15 and Winchester
Road and 1-15 and Rancho California Road
0
0UP-$076 &ute DealarshiD on west Side of Ynez. South of
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Set matter for Public Hearing to consider modifying
the conditions of approval, subject to payment of
applicable appeal fees ($405).
Budget for the Boron Months gndina June 30, 1990
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMBCUL~ADOPTINQ ~ BUDGET FOR THE 1989-90
FZBC~LYF~R
(TO be held at 8:00 ~) Please see separate agenda
CDBG Funds - $am Hioks Park
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve the submission of the application to the
county of Riverside requesting Community
Development Block Grant Funds for the proposed
improvements to Sam Hicks Monument Park, consisting
of installation of roadway, walkway, drainage,
lighting and parking improvements.
9.2 Authorize the City Manager to sign the application
on behalf of the City.
3
~ 10. ~olution of ~ntent - #ello Roes District
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
P~SOLUTXONNO. g0-
A P~SOL~TION OFT HE CITY COUnCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL~
RE~ARDING ITS I~ION ~~IST WI~ ~ FI~CIN~ OF
~ ~FIC ~ P~ FACILITIES OF ~IO~L BE~FIT
WX~XN ~ ~XTY BY ~XNG CERTAIN S~S T~ ~~S
A~X~ ~R Pl~ OF DEBT SE~CE ON ~S OF
~~XTY FACXLITIBS DIBT~ ~. 88-12 (~Z CO~I~R)
OF ~ ~Y OF R~XDE ~I~Y BE IHH~D TO FIN~CE
~ ~NSTRU~ION OF SU~ FACILITIES
CXTYM~N~.GER0S it~PORT
11. Report on Status - Club Valencia. Tract 23304
12.
13.
North County Landfill B.I.R.
~& Survey of Develooment Fees
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Next meeting: March 20, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
Next regular meeting: March 27, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
2/ager~313gO 4 03/09/90
MINUTES OF A REGULXRMEETING
OF THE TEMECULXCITY COUNCIL
HELD FEBRUXRY 13~ 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order
at 7:07 p.m. in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street,
Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding.
PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Muhoz, Parks
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott
F. Field, and Acting Deputy city Clerk June S. Greek.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Marty Edwards of Lambs
Fellowship.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember
Pat Birdsall.
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
1. Resolution co-sponsorinq "Meet Your Judges,, Week March 4-
10. 1990
2. Resolution proclaiming March as "Women's History Month"
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Muhoz to adopt the following resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CO-SPONSORING "MEET YOUR JUDGES" WEEK
RESOLUTION NO. 90-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF MARCH AS
"WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH"
#i r~t es\:~/15\90 - 1 - 0]/02/90
City COuncil Minutes February 13, 1990
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Muhoz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLIC
James Marpel, 19190 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing the
Citizens for Responsible Water Management addressed the
Council regarding the need to conserve water and to protect
the ground water recharging capabilities of the area. He
urged the City Council to adopt an ordinance protecting the
area Watershed.
John Cloghen, 41304 Bravos Ct., commented on the meeting held
on Monday, February 12, 1990, stating that he did not agree
with the Council's decision to negotiate a contract with the
Riverside County Sheriff's Department. He stated that the
Council's concern with regard to the City's liability in
possible use of private security personnel, was misdirected
and should be more concerned with the Citizen's liability. He
also questioned why action had been taken at a special meeting
rather than delayed until a regular meeting of the City
Council.
Mayor Parks advised that the citizens of Temecula would be
given additional opportunity to make public comment with
regard to the contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager asked that Item 2 be removed from the Consent
Calendar for further discussion.
Councilmember Birdsall requested that Item 4 be removed.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Birdsall to approved Items 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the Consent
Calendar as follows:
Hinutes\2/13\90 -2- 0~/02/90
City Council Minutes February 13, 1990
me
0
ainutes
1.1 Approved the minutes of the meeting of January 23,
1990 as mailed.
Xnves~nents in the Local Agency Investment Fund
3.1 Adopted a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-12
~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TF~ECUL~ AUTHORIZING IHVESTHENT OF CITY
MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
Se
Adoption of Pe~anent City Ordinances
5.1 Introduced an Ordinance and directed that a Public
Hearing be noticed for a second reading on February
27, 1990 as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
~N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEHECUL~ ADOPTING BY REFERENCE PORTIONS OF
THE NON-CODIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCES
o
Resolution &pprovinq Payment of Demands
6.1 Adopted a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECUL~; APPROVING THE W~NT REGISTER,
DATED FEBRUARY 13, 1990.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Muff.z, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
N i nut es\2/13\90 - 3- 03/02/90
City Council Minutes February 13, 1990
e
Tract N~p 23484 - vacating Drainage Easement
City Manager F. D. Aleshire recommended that the City Council
approve the. Final Tract Map and approve by Resolution the
vacation of the drainage easement.
Vic Lial from the Riverside County Road Department advised the
Council that all the conditions for approval had been met and
that the roads have been approved.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Moore approve the Final Tract Map for Tract
23483 and to adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUMMARILY VACATING A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT FOR TRACT 23483
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
®
Second Readinq of Ordinance Establishinq the Temecula
Municipal Code
Councilmember Birdsall requested that the City Council
consider the section dealing with the qualifications for
Commission appointments. City Attorney Scott Field
recommended adoption without further amendments to the section
to allow the entire ordinance to take effect. He stated that
the City Council could amend a section at a later date if they
chose to do so.
Mayor Parks asked, if the section dealing with residency
qualifications was amended at a later meeting, could the
Council make appointments based on the amendment and not have
them delayed until those provisions had been through first and
second reading and the normal waiting period.
#i nutes\2/l.~\90 -4- 0~/02/90
City Council Minutes February 13, 1990
City Attorney Field advised that the Council could make
appointments at any time but that the appointments could not
become effective until the ordinance as amended takes effect.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Muhoz to adopt and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDZNi~CE NO. 90- 02
~I ORDZN]LlCCE OF THE CZT¥ COUNCZL OF THE CZTY OF
TENECUL~ EBTABLZSHZNG THE TENECUL~MUNZCZPAL CODE,
~ID ENACTING TZTLES 1,2 ~ND 3 THEREOF RELATING TO
GEICEI~L PROVISIONS, ]tDMZNZSTI~J~TZON ~ PERSONNEL,
lt~TD REVENUE ~ FZNi~TCE
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLZC HE]LRZNGS
7. Outdoor Advertisement 1170
Mayor Parks opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 PM. City
Manager Frank Aleshire stated that County Planning staff
recommended approval of the outdoor sign and an appeal was
subsequently filed. LHe said the matter was advertised for
hearing and introduced John Ristow of the Riverside County
Planning Staff who presented the staff report recommending
approval of the billboard.
John Gunderson, 26525 Jefferson Avenue, President of Outdoor
Media Group addressed the City Council requesting approval of
the sign based on the fact that it meets all the County
requirements for an advertising structure as provided for in
County Ordinance No. 348.
Mary Jane Jagodzinski, representing Bedford Properties, 28765
Single Oak Drive, Temecula, stated that she was also
representing the commercial community and that they feel a
billboard at this location is obtrusive and inappropriate.
Councilmember Mufioz asked Ms. Jagodzinski how long Bedford
Properties temporary signs were allowed to remain in place.
Ninutes\2/1]\90 -5- 03/02/90
City Council Minutes February 13, 1990
She responded that the only signs of a temporary nature they
have in the City are leasing signs and those only remain
posted until the property becomes leased.
Marshall Coalter, representing Outdoor Media Group, addressed
the City Council and restated his firm's belief that the signs
should be approved because they meet all the County
requirements. He stressed that until the City enacts their
own sign ordinance, he does not believe that public opinion
should govern these decisions.
Councilmember Muhoz questioned the City Attorney if the City
Council has any discretion in this matter, and if so he stated
that compatibility should be a definite consideration.
Mayor Parks declared the hearing closed at 7:53 PM.
Councilmember Lindemans commented that he would like to phase
out billboards within the City with some form of mitigation
ordinance.
Councilmember Moore suggested that this matter be referred to
staff for review along with review of a possible City sign
ordinance.
Councilmember Muhoz stated that he shares the long-term
concerns for removing billboards, he suggested that regulation
is necessary to maintain the appropriately attractive skyline
the community desires.
Mayor Parks indicated that he had a problem with the location
of this proposed sign, not with billboards in general. He
also stated that he was concerned that 1-15 is designated as
a scenic highway.
John Ristow, explained that the 1-15 is designated as a scenic
highway in the Southwest Area Plan but not by the State of
California.
city Attorney Scott Field advised the Council that if they are
considering a denial of the staff recommendations, a
confirming resolution should be prepared for adoption.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Moore to sustain the appeal, deny the Plot Plan
and request the City Attorney to prepare a confirming
resolution with findings to be placed on the next agenda.
N i nutes\2/13\90 - 6- 03/02/90
City council Minutes February 13, 1990
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Muhoz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
.RECESS
Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:03 PM
The meeting was reconvened following the scheduled CSD Meeting
at 8:33 PM
pUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont)
8. Extension of Ordinance No. 90-01 Declarinq a Moratorium on the
Construction and Use of Television and Radio Antennas
Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:34 PM
city Attorney Scott Field presented the staff report and
pointed out zoning areas in the City which allow radio
antennas He also referred to various ordinances from other
cities which regulate antennas. He stated that extending the
moratorium would allow the City Council over ten months to
thoroughly research this matter and determine the best methods
of dealing with transmitting towers and antennas.
Councilmember Lindemans questioned if the language in the
suggested ordinance includes ham radio antennas. City
Attorney Field replied that under the new ordinance new
construction of ham antennas would not be permitted.
Councilmember Mufioz questioned if the staff could recommend
the amount of time they would need to prepare the zoning
ordinance. Scott Field responded that there needs to be time
for the City's Planning Commission to be selected, trained and
operating with staff to advise them, and that this could
conceivably take place by September of 1990.
Mayor Parks closed the hearing at 8:45 PM.
Councilmember Lindemans requested the Council consider an
exemption for ham radio antennas in this proposed ordinance.
#ir~tes\~/1]\90 -?- 0]/02/90
City council Minutes February 13, 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Moore to adopt an urgency ordinance to extend
the moratorium through January 8, 1991, with a provision added
to Section 2, exempting non-commercial (Ham Radio) antennas as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 WHICH
DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE
OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS-.
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Mufioz
Parks
None
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DESCRIBING MEASURES TAKEN TO
ALLEVIATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO THE
ADOPTION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 90-01
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Ch&nqe of ~one No. $385 and Plot Plan 11001
Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:46 PM.
# i r~t es\2/13\90 - 8- 03/02/90
_ City council Minutes February 13, 1990
city Manager F. D. Aleshire introduced County Planner Richard
McHott who presented the staff report. Mr. McHott stated that
this is an application for a 220 unit apartment project
located on 13.8 acres located north of Rancho California Road
and south of Margarita Road. The zone change will allow for
a slight density increase. He further advised that this
property does lie in the Stephens Kangaroo Rat preservation
area.
The Proponent David Walsh, gave the Council a report on the
project. He stated that the project would be built for condo
conversion at a later date. He outlined the amenities to be
included in both the total project and in the individual
units.
Councilmember Lindemans questioned if this is a low-cost
housing project.
Mr. McHott explained that the project is not a low-cost
project, the forms included in the Council's packet were for
information only.
Councilmember Lindemansquestioned if the project was designed
for adult occupancy.
Mr. Walsh explained that occupancy could not be limited to
adults only, but that the design of the units did lend
themselves more to use by adults than by families with
children.
Robert Oder, 29590 Mira Loma Drive, spoke in opposition to the
development of the condominium concept. He questioned if the
market for this type of development exists, stating that he
had not had any success marketing his apartments as
condominiums.
Mr. Walsh, speaking in rebuttal, stated that a market did
exist for condominiums and successful marketing depended upon
the units being properly designed.
Mayor Parks declared the public hearing closed at 9:06 PM.
Councilmember Moore questioned the impact this development
would have on traffic in this area.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if any traffic mitigation fees
have been collected for this project.
Ninutes\2/1]\90 -9- 03/02/90
-- City Council Minutes February 13, 1990
Richard MacHott stated that no fees have been assessed for
freeway on/off ramps as described by Councilmember Lindemans
but all required street improvements recommended were included
in the conditions.
Councilmember Muhoz stated he would like to see this matter
continued to allow time to look at all the properties in the
area and the impact of all the high density projects on
traffic, schools and freeway access.
Councilmember Lindemans expressed his concerns with increasing
the density in any of the projected apartment projects.
Councilmember Moore stated that the when the City Council
adopted the Southwest Area Plan the City should make any
recommended changes, but until then she felt it was only fair
to use the Riverside County standards which have been given to
the developers.
Councilmember Birdsall asked the exact number of units to be
added to the project if the zone change is approved. Mr.
Walsh replied that the change would allow an additional 16 to
17 units, which would allow for the installation of the
additional amenities he outlined at the beginning of the
hearing.
Mayor Parks commented that the City Council is operating under
the Southwest Area Plan which allows for 8-16 units per acre,
that the fees have all been included, the proposal is for a
high quality development, and the issues of terrain have been
properly addressed. He also stated that this meets a need for
good entry level housing.
Councilmember Muhoz asked how much high density development
can the community tolerate in the areas where traffic is
already impacted and where there is not sufficient
recreational areas for the children.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if the developer would be
amenable to a condition assessing additional fees to go toward
freeway on and off-ramp development if the City Council adopts
such a mitigation program later on.
Mr. Walsh stated that this would be acceptable, if the City
Council does adopt such a fee schedule, and if the cost of
such a condition could be defined now.
Councilmember Lindemans stated that he felt the City Council
is sending out the wrong signal to developers by approving
this project because of the increase in density.
nut es\2! 1:~\90 - 10 - 03/02/90
- City council Minutes February 13, 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Birdsall to approve Plot Plan 11011, Exhibit A, Amended No. 3
with the addition of a condition number 35 which would read as
follows:
35.
Prior to the issuance of individual building permits, the
applicant shall comply with any generally applicable
traffic mitigation program to pay for freeway, bridge
and/or major thoroughfare facilities which may be
established between the date of approval of this Plot
Plan and the issuance of individual building permits,
provided the fee shall not exceed $150 per unit.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Moore, Parks
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Muhoz
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Richard MacHott advised that this matter will be brought back
to the City Council after the Planning Staff has prepared the
necessary changes to reflect the Council action, and this
should be within the next three to four weeks.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
10.
Classification Titles, Salary Ranqes and Initial Personnel
Policies
City Manager F. D. Aleshire said that this action carries out
City Council direction given at the budget workshop held on
January 20, 1990 and the additional direction given regarding
the position of Manager, Information Systems given on February
6, 1990. He then introduced personnel consultant Mr. Michael
Deblieux of the firm of IEM (Ideas for Effective Management).
Mr. Deblieux outlined the methods used in the preparation of
the report and the recommendations to the City Council and
invited questions.
Councilmember Mufioz questioned if the local data on salaries
was included as requested by Council on January 20, 1990.
#i nut es\2/1 ]\90 - 11 -
city Council Minutes February 13, 1990
Mr. Deblieux stated that this information was provided by
Merchants & Manufacturers and was reflected in Attachment II.
Councilmember Muhoz stated that the Council's direction was to
see a strictly local pattern and questioned if the data
supplied by Eastman Personnel had been considered. Mr.
Deblieux responded that all the local data gathered by City
staff had been made available to him and that the figures
presented were more conservative than originally projected as
a result of that data.
Mayor Parks questioned why all the salaries in the Clerical
positions were lower than those in neighboring cities. Mr.
Deblieux responded that this allows for upward adjustment in
the future as the City's population increases merited such
changes.
Councilmember Birdsall asked if there is a future phase to
deal with the benefit packages to be offered City employees.
city Manager Aleshire advised the Council that a separate
package will be presented for benefit programs when these
program recommendations have been finalized.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Moore to adopt a resolution including Exhibits
A, B, and C, entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECUL~PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
PERSONNEL POLICIES
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Muhoz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember birdsall asked when this would become effective.
City Attorney Scott Field advised that the Resolution would
become effective immediately.
#inutes\Z/l:~\90 -lZ- 0:5/02/90
-- City Council Minutes February 13, 1990
CITY N~h"AGER REPORT
None
~ITY ~TTORNEY REPORT
None
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Lindemans requested that the Mello-Roos
Consultants presentations to be made on February 20th be
televised even though this is not a regular meeting of the
City Council.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to adjourn at 9:55 PM to an adjourned regular
meeting to be held at the Rancho California Water District,
28061 Diaz Road, at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, February 20, 1990
The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST'.
RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR
F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK
#i nut es\2/1 ~\90 - 1~- 03/02/90
CX'I"Z OF ~
COUIIT7 PLM~XNG DEP~
This item should be:
n
Set and noticed for public hearing
Placed on agenda as a receive and file item
Action taken at your discretion
SUBMFII'AL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TEMECULA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, $~- '~TE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBMll-FAL DATE: March 8, 1990
SUBJECT: Notice of Decision of Permit Acted on by the Planning Commission
on January 31, 1990
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision for the case acted on by the Planning
Commission on January 31, 1990.
THE PLANNING CO)~ISSION
ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for E.A. Number 34317 based on the findings
incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and,
APPROVED the PUBLIC USE CASE NO. 679 subject to the attached conditions and
based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission
minutes dated January 31, 1990.
/8/9o
Jo/~ph A/. Richards; Planning Director
U
PROJECT LOCATION:
North of Business Park Drive and west of Single Oak Drive in City of Temecula.
BACKGROUND:
Public Use Permit No. 679 proposes to locate a 210 seat church with Bible
Study Classes in a portion of an existing industrial building located in an
industrial park. The Planning Commission approved the proposal on January 31,
1990.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PI. ANNING C(X4HISSION 141NUTES
January 31, 1990
tGomprehenstve General Plan. .
luston #2 II#ENDED to reid: Environmental concerns can be
ated. The project ts compatible vlth area development.
FINDINGS MID Parcel Kip No. 24333 vhtch ms a proposal to
subdivide a 3.$ acres into 4 residential parcels, ms denied at the
duly 24, 1989 Director's Heartng; the site is located east of Canyon
Ridge Road and north E1 Kism Drtve; the site ts vacant, and surrounded by
stn~lle fmtly
zoning wtthtn the County
lnclude: erosive soils,
and equestrian tratls and
a minimum 2.6 acre lot size,
the sphere of the Rancho E1
project is in conformance vlth the
concerns can be mitigated and the
vacant land; the slte is zoned R-A; surrounding
Ilverstde also tncludes R-A; environmental concerns
and blowsand, palenntologtcal resources
the Rancho E1 Sobrante Poltctes calls for
&rca1 lap proposes rural lot sizes that meet
,ltctes and the General Plan. The
.~henstve General Plan; environmental
compatible with area development.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner,
unanimously carried, the Co~tsston upheld the
for Tentative Parcel Map 24333. adopted the
and approved Tentative Parcel Hap 24333 subject to
based on the above findings and conclusions as
by Commissioner Wolf, and
)al of Director's decision
Declaration for EA 33512
of approval and
ROLL CALL RESULTED AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Commissioners Turner, Smith, Oonahoe, Beadltng, Wolf
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(AGENDA ITEH 4-6 - Tape lB)
PUBLIC USE PERI4IT 679 - EA 34317 - Trinity Christian Church - Temecula A~ea -
First Suparvlsortal Dtstrtct - north of business Park Dr, vest of Single Oak
D_~r. - PROJECT: To locate I church wtthtn an exlsttflg Industrial complex
The hearing ms opened at 10:46 a.i. and ms closed at 10:53 a.m.
STAFF RECOHI~NDATION: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 34317 based
on the conclusion that the project wtll not hive a stgetftcent effect on the
envtromNnt and approval of Publlc Use Penntt 679 blsed on the conditions of
approval and the ftndt~s and conclusions incorporated tn the staff report.
The mppltcant ts proposing to locate I 210 seat church wtth btble study classes
in a portton of an extsttng Industrial butldtng that ts located in an
Industrial park. The proposed project is located north of Business Park Drive
and vest of $tngle Oak Drtve tn the Ctty of Temcula. The project stte 11es
vlthln a cmpleted tndestrtal park vhtch contatns ~ Industrial buildings and
associated parking. Surrounding land uses include industrial parks, graded and
14
RIVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING CO#qlSSZO# t41NUTES January 31, 1990
vacant l&nds. The stte ts currently zoned #-SC Nhtle the surrounding adjacent
zontng ts all Iq-SC. The stte of the proposed project 11es Mthtn the Southwest
Territory Lend Use Pla~nt~g Arel end ts subject to the pollctes of the
SoutMmst Arel Community Plan and ts located tn the ctty of Temecula. County
Ordt~lnce 348 &11ols churches tn any zone as long is the church ts considered
compatible vtth the arol. The proposed church ts planned to betng used on
Sundays and durtng the eventng noure on ~eek days. Staff advtsed that the
proposed project ts consistent vtth the Soutl~est Area Community Plan pollctes
covertng churches, conststant vlth Ordinance 348 and compatible vtth area
developement. All envtroremntal concerns can be mitigated.
TESTIIqONY OF PROPONENT
Chrts Bachme*n, Design Concepts West, 27715 ,lefferson Ave. Sutte 105C, Temecula
satd they are the destgner~ of the project tn question. )tr. Bachamn concurred
vtth the conditions as presented imf had no problem wtth them. The questton he
dtd have ts slnce they have submitted thts package, the cmmuntty of Temecula
ts no~ a ctty and at thts potnt he wanted to knoM tf thts project would go
before the Ctty Counctl of Temecula or would tt go on the the Board of
Supervisors. )tr. Rtchards satd tt wtl] go to the Ctty of Temecula for thetr
approval.
Commissioner Beadltng questioned )tr. Bachamn of where they are gotng to get the
ltght for thetr building. Hr. Bachamn smtd the 11ghttng wou]d be artificial,
and he setd there ts currently ltghttmj tn the front of the building.
Cmmtsstoner Smtth questioned the destgn of the map. He asked vd~y back to back
plumbtng was not used for the restrooms. Mr. Bachnmn satd the c11ent did make
some destgn changes so tt was thetr preference to keep tt thts way, but he
noted beck to beck plumbtng ts used
Coetntsstoner Turner questioned the ttme frame of the proposed project; he asked
)tr. Bachln would they use al1 of thts ttme. )tr. Bachmen said the Intention of
the church staff ts to look around for a panMnent stta to butld a church tn
the vtctntty of MurrJeta or Telmcula. #r. Bachmen noted that the church they
are tn presently ts a temporary facility.
There was no one present tn opposition to the proposed project.
At thts potnt staff llde the fo1 lovtng changes tn the staff report.
tlr. tllcHott noted that on page I of the staff report under background the
number of seattng tn the church ts 210 tnstead of 150.
Ftndt~g #1 JI#ENDED to reid '210 seat church' tnstead of a 150 seat
church.
Heartng closed at 10:53 a.m.
FINDING MD CONCt. USION: The applicant ts proposing to locate a 210 seat church
vqthtn an extsttng tedustrtal butldtng located tn an Industrial park; the stte
15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNI#6 COHHISSXON NINUTE$ January 31, 1990
contatns t~o bUildings ~tth a total of 100,430 square feet and 279 pirktng
spices; surroondtng land uses Include Industrial pa~ks, graded land, Ind vacant
lind; the project stte ts zoned H-SC; sur?oundtng ~dJacent zontng ts H-SC; the
project stte ts locited In the Southvest Territory Land Use Pl&nntng Area and
vtthtn the Southvest Am Commntty Plan; the project stte ts locoted vtthtn
the nevly Incorporated Ctty of Tmecula; the p~oJect ts tn confonmnce vtth
Ordinance No. 348, and the $outhwst Area Commntty Plan and envtrormental
concerns tnclude liquefaction and floodtng hazards. No liquefaction hazard vas
found on the stte end the 1flooding concerns hive been dealt vlth through the
constructtofl of flood control facilities. No other onvtromental concerns vere
Identified. Publlc Use Pemtt #o. 679 ts consistent utah the Southvest Area
Commntty Plan and the Comprehensive General Plan; Pub]tc Use Pemtt NO. 679 Is
compatible vtth arel development and Publtc Use Pemtt No. 679 vrl]l not have a
significant effect on the envtronmnt.
HOTZ~: Upon morton by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Ccmntsstoner t~o]f and
unantmous]y carrted, the C:ommtsslon adopted the Negattve Declaration for £A
34317 and approve] of Pub]tc Use Permtt 679 subject to the concltttons of
approval and based on the ftndtngs as amended as a recomnendatton to the
Temecula Ctty ¢ounct].
ZTEH 5-1 - Tape 2A)
OF ZONE S406 - EA 33583 - ARS Development Company, Inc. - Cherry Va1 lay
Dtst~ Ftfth Supervt sort al Dtstrtct- 52.6~ acres, Callmesa Blvd north of
Cherry lay Blvd - It-2 to R-T and C-P-S, etc. vdth TRACT RAP NO. 23528 - 197
lots - 52 acres - Schedule A (Cont. from 11/1/89)
Heartng vas
Apr11 4, 1990.
at 1:30 p.m. and vas continued to 1:30 p.m. on
Staff ~vtsed that
one present vho vt shed
vtth the continuance.
)pltcant requested a 60 days continuance. There Nas no
this matter. Conntsstoner ¥o]f concurred
140TZOfl: Upon morton by
and unanimously cirrted, Change
continued to Apr1] 4, 1990 at 1:30
NOlf, seconded by Coawntsstoner Oonahoe,
.one 6405 and Tract I~lp No. 23628 mre
(AGENDA ZTEH 5-2 - T&pe 2A)
CHANGE OF ZONE S472 - EA 33834 - James Joo-Hyok
Thtrd Supervt sort al Otstrtct - 20~ acres, north
Hirpir Line - R-A-20 to R-A-lO, etc. vt th PARCEL
acres - Schedule H
- Rlncho ~ltfornta Area -
Ista Del Nonte Rd, east of
- 2 lot - 20,
helrtng vms opened at 1:33 p.m. and vis continued off cll( '.
16
Zoning District: Temecula
Supervisorial District: First
E.A. Number: 34317
Regional Team No.: One
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 679
Planning Commission: 1-31-90
Agenda Item No.: 4-6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
STAFF REPORT
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
12.
13.
Applicant:
Engineer/Rep.:
Type of Request:
Location:
Existing Zoning:
Surrounding Zoning:
Site Characteristics:
Area Characteristics:
Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
Land Division Data:
Agency Recommendations:
Letters:
Sphere of Influence:
Trinity Christian Church
Design Concepts West
Location of a church within an existing
Industrial building
North of Business Park Drive, west of
Single Oak Drive
M-SC
M-SC
Completed industrial park containing
two buildings with parking
Industrial parks, graded land, and
vacant land
Land Use: Light Industrial
Total Acreage: 5 acres
See Letter Dated:
Road: 10-27-89
Health: 10-05-89
Flood: 10-24-89
Fire: 10-05-89
Building and Safety:
Land Use: 10-23-8g
Grading: 10-26-89
Opposing/Supporting: None received
Not within a City Sphere
Public Use Permit No. 679, proposes to locate a 210 seat church with Bible
Studies classes in a portlon of an extstlng Industrial buildtn9 located in an
Industrial park. The project site is located north of Bustness Park Drive and
west of Single Oak Drive in the City of Temecula. (Amended P.C. 1-31-90)
'Land Use and Zcmtncz
The project site lies within a completed industrial park which contains two
industrial buildings and associated parking. Surrounding land uses include
industrial parks, graded land, and vacant land·
The project site is zoned M-SC. Surrounding adjacent zoning is all M-SC.
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 679
Staff Report
Page 2
General Plan Consistency and Area CoJoattbllltv
The project site lies within the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area, is
subject to the policies of the Southwest Area Community Plan, and is located
within the newly Incorporated City of Temecula. The SWAP designation for the
site ts L-1 (Light Industrial). The present zoning of M-SC and the Industrial
Park, which has been built on the site, are consistent with the Southwest Area
Community Plan.
The SWAP policies concerning religious worship centers calls for .land use
compatibility, adequate circulation, adequate water distribution, adequate sewage
collection and utility service, and the project cannot jeopardize public health,
safety, and welfare. County Ordinance No. 348 allows churches, with an approved
Public Use Permit, in any zone as long as the church is considered compatible
with the area. The project site contains 100,430 square feet of floor area
between two buildings with an associated 279 parking spaces. The proposed church
is contemplated as being used on Sundays and during the evening hours on
weekdays. Adequate circulation exists serving the project site, ample parking
is available, adequate water distribution and sewage disposal are available, and
utilities are available. The location of the project will not jeopardize public
health, safety,a nd welfare. Therefore, this project is found to be consistent
with the Southwest Area Community Plan policies covering churches, consistent
with Ordinance No. 348, and compatible with area development.
Environmental Analysis
The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 34317 indicated the potential
for liquefaction hazard and flood hazard. The building the church is proposing
to locate in is a part of Plot Plan No. 10909. County Liquefaction Report No.
591 was done on this Plot Plan with no liquefaction hazard found on the site and
no mitigation is required. The site was found to be subject to flood hazard.
The County Flood Department finds that flood control facilities have been
constructed for mitigation of the possible flooding of the site. No other
environmental concerns were identified.
The applicant is proposing to locate a 210 seat church within an existing
industrial building locate in an industrial park. (Amended P.C. 1-31-90)
m
The site contains two building with a total of 100,430 square feet and 279
parktng spaces. Surrounding land uses lnclude Industrial parks, graded
land, and vacant land.
3. The project site is zoned M-SC. Surrounding adjacent zoning is M-SC.
The project site is located in the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning
Area and wlthln the Southwest Area Community Plan.
PUeLICUSE PH~IIT NO. 670
~t~ffRN:ort
$. The proJect stte ts located wtthtn the rwdly Incorporated City of Temecula.
6. The project Is tn oonforuance wtth Ordinance #o. 348, end the Southwest
Area C~muuntty Plan.
7. Environmental concerns tnclude liquefaction and floodtng hazards. No
liquefaction hazard was found on the stte and the floodtng concerns have
boon dealt with through the construction of flood control facilities. No
other environmental concerns were identified.
1. Publtc Uso Permit No. 679 is consistent with the Southwest Area Comuunlty
Plan and the Comprehensive Oeneral Plan.
2. Public Use Permit No. 679 is compatible with area develolxuent.
3. Publtc Use Permit No. 679 wtll not have a significant effect on the
environment.
RECOI~ENOATION:
AI)OPTI~ of the Negative Oeclaratton for Environmental Assessment No. 34317,
based on the conclusion that the proposed project w111 not have · significant
effect on the environment; and,
APPROV~ of PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 679 , subject to the conditions of approval,
and based on the findings and conclusions incorporated into this staff report.
laf:csf
~/~8/~o
PU 679
uc
HILLS
.GRADED
LAND USE
UC
GRADED
STRI
GRADED '~ PARK
~NDUSTRY ~
&OCATIOWAL MAP
TRINITY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
CHIJ~CH (¢MBLE: STUDY SERVICES)
1'- 800'
~fO ~CAL£
~ R~I~HO C~I.IFORNIA RD.-IECONDAI:Iy-Ie'
~ ~ ~ BEI~RI~ENT
PU 679 EXISTING ZONING
-R
Mm
-2
~TY
~00'
C- R-A-2 '%
I-P
TRINITY CHRISTIAN. CHURCH
CHURCH ( B~LE ~rtJDY ~ )
TEMECULA ~Ip.DMt. 1
T. SS.,R.3W. A~or'~ Bk. 921 I:~. 02
(~ RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD.-SECONDARY-SS'
EMI11~It DIAZ RD. - MAJOR - 100'
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I I I
HO ~CAL£
MAP
PU 679
CP- SWAP
RLI
L!
L!
OC ,, C
U~e TRINITy ISTIAN
RLI
LO
'.ALE
RIYERSIDE ~ PLASffiII~I DEPARTNEKr
O08DITIO88 OF APPROVAL
Trtnlty Christian Church
24935 #ashtngton Avenue
gurrteta, CA 92362
PUBLIC USE PERMIT IlO. 679
Project I)escrlptton: Location of
church in an existing industrial
building
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-020-055
District: T-macule
The use hereby permitted is for a church located wtthtn Assessor's Parcel
Number 921-020-055.
The permtttee shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, 1ts agents, officers, and employees from any claims, actton,
or proceeding agatnst the County of Riverside or 1ts agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County
of Riverside, 1ts advtsory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body
concerning Publlc Use Permlt No. 679. The County of Riverside wtll
promptly nottfy the permtttee of any such clatm, actton, or proceeding
agalnst the County of Riverside and w111 cooperate fully In the defense.
If the County falls to promptly nottfy the permtttee of any such claim,
actlon or proceeding or fatls to cooperate fully tn the defense, the
permtttee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, Indemnify, or
hold harmless the County of Riverside.
This approval shall be used wtthtn one (1) years of approval date;
otherwise, it shall become null and votd and of no effect whatsoever. By
use ts meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by thts
approval wtthtn the one (1) year pertod which ts thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by thts approval.
e
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
sho~n on plot plan marked Exhtbtt A, or as amended by these conditions.
In the event the use hereby permttted ceases operation for a pertod of one
(1) year or more, thts approval shall become null and votd.
Any outside 11ghttng shall be hooded and dtrected so as not to shtne
dtrectly upon &d~otntng proper~y or publlc rights-of-way.
m
The subdivider shall comply wtth the street taprovemont recommandattons
outltned tn the County Road Department's letter dated October 27, 1989,
a copy of whtch ts attached.
#ater and sea, rage dtsposal facilities aha11 be Installed tn accordance
wlth the provisions set forth tn the Riverside County Health Department's
tran~tttal dated October 5, lg89, & copy of vhtch ts attached.
em
Flood protectton shell b-provided tn accordance with th-Riverside County
Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 24, 1989, a copy of
whtch ts attached.
PUBLTC USE PEI~IIT t~. 679
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Fire protection shall be provtded tn accordance wtth the appropriate
sectton of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Ftre tVarden's transmittal dated
October 5, 1989, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply wtth the recommendations set forth tn the
Department of But ldtng and Safety - Land Use Section's transmittal dated
October 23, 1989, a copy of whtch is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Butldtng and Safety -Gradtng Section's transmittal dated
October 26, 1989, a copy of whtch is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated March 9, 1989, a copy of
which Is attached.
Prtor to the lssuance of butldtng permits, the applicant shall obtain
clearance and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department Riverside County Flood Control
Environmental Health Fire Department
Wrttten evtdence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Dlvtston
of the Department of Building and Safety.
Prtor to the tssuance of butldtng permtts, the following additional and/or
revtsed plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Signing Program
Floorplans shall be In substantial conformance with that shown on Exhtbtt
A.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shtelded from ground vtew. Screening
matertal shall be subject to Planntng Department approval.
This approval shall become null and votd on January 31, 2000.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy
or any use allowed by thls permtt.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paylng the appropriate fees.
Rt~:csf
1/1~/9o
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
October 27, 1989
lOAD IIX4MIS~iCt%~ & ~ ~RV~
Riverside County Planning Co~ssion
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Re:
PU 679
Te~m I - SMD %9
Parcel 3 of PM 20873
AP %111-111-111-9
ODUNTY
P.O. BOx 1090
~ CALI/Of~L~ 9~'S0'2
(714) ?~?.6554
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Road Department has not required a traffic study for
this project as we have a traffic study on file which addresses
traffic impacts in the immediate area. This study indicates a
projected Level of Service 'A" at Rancho California Road and
Business Park Drive. The Comprehensive General Plan circulation
policies relative to Category II Land Uses states: "A minimum of
level of service "C" is necessary for any new Category II land
use. As such, the proposed project is consistent with ~his
General Plan policy. Therefore, should this project be approved
the Road Del~mrtment recommends the following conditions:
With respect to the
referenced item, the
recommendations:
conditions of approval for the above
Road Department has the following
Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this
permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at
no cost to any government agency:
No additional right of way shall be required on Business
Park Drive since adequate right ofway exists.
®
Traffic signal mitigation has ~nmet on this site.as part
of P.P. 9242, paid 3/16/88 in the sum of $11,147.50
Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the
&l~licant shall construct ~he following at no cost to any
government agency:
e
No additional mad imp~ve~ents will be requ~ at this
time.
COUNTY ADI~ONISTRATIVE ~ · 4OS0 ~N STREI'I' · ~K, CJLI~ORNIA 9~$01
FU 67~a
October 27, 1989
Page 2
®
e
Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
Ail work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside
County Standards.
The street design and improvement concept of ~his project
shall be coordinated wi~h PM 131/58-59, P/P 839-X and P.P.
9242.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
cc~ply with Road DeparUnent standards and require approval
by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road Co~issioD~r. Landscape
plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict ~
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit
district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make
application for and pay for ~heir reapportionment of the
assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district
un/ess said fees are deferred to building permit.
Technical Eng. Unit Supervisor
C6 nty of Rive ide
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TI:
R~VERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
O~T 5 1~8~
lJ~
PUBLIC USIE PERMIT 679 ~,v;:,,;'-:-'. :~.::-;"'- ..",
The Enviromaental Health Services has reviewed Public Use
Permit 679 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water
services are available in this area, Prior to building plan
approval, the foilowi'nq items will be submitted:
"Will-serve" letters from the water and
sewerinq aqencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted includinq a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a
plumbxn~ schedule in order to ensure compliance
with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law.
SM:tat
OOH-G~-(Xl2 (Re~. 11M1)
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVER'~IDE, GALIFORNIA 82502
October 24, 1989
1995 MARKET STREET
P.O, BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015
FAX NO, (714) 788-9965
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 1
Randy Wilson
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Public Use Permit 679
This is a proposal to establish a church in an existing building
in a business park in Temecula. The site is located on the north
side of Business Park Drive west of Single Oak Drive.
The grading, street improvements and flood control facilities
have been constructed under Parcel Map 19580. The District does
not object to the proposed use.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Zully Smith
of this office at 714/787-2333.
c: Trinity Christian Center
enior Civil ~.ngineer
ZS:mcy
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-20~ O~15 STRF. ET, ~JITE 405
INDIO. CA 92201
(619} 342.8886
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
10-05-89
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 787.6606
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: RANDY WILSON
RE: PUBLIC USE 679
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
1. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
Section 503.
2. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
3. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
4. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC.
Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
®
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00 to
the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system.
Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation.
7. Fire sprinklers may need to be relocated to provide adequate coverage
when improvements are installed.
8. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in
Building and Safety.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
ml
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
October 23, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Randy Wilson
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Pubilic Use Permit #679, Exhibit A
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site
signage will be required.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
conform with an approved floor plan indicating the maximum
number of tenants allowed. Each space shall be labeled with
a number or a letter.
If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department
the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division
concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review.
Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety
review, one complete set of approved conditions from 'Planning
Department must be attached.
Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must
be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B,
per Ordinance 655.
Grading clearance required - in ground fissure area.
Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping
may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval.
Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020
Planning Oepartment
PU 679
October 23, 1989
Page 2
Tenant Improvement plans will be required prior to issuance of
building permits.
Very truly yours,
Robert Linares
Senior Land Use Technician
/$n
RIVERSl DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMEN:I"
OCT g'6 1989
Co~ents - -- ~itial
pup ~ 7~/ ~Y ,el~,~a'z
October 25,
Planners I Designers / Enginee rs
Department of Building and Safety
County of Riverside
1777 Atlanta Drive
Riverside, California 92507
Attn: Howard Mills
RE: PUP ~79 Trinity Christian Church
Dear Mr. M~lls:
In response to your comments in our LDC meeting Thursday, October
1~, 1~8~, I am informing you that all buildings, finish floors,
A.C. driveways, driveway grades, and parking lot grades are
existing per building permit #428405 and was finalized on June
1~8~. The use is for a tenant space for a church whose hours of
operation will be Wednesday evenings and Sundays.
If you have any further questions or comments, please don't
hesitate to call. Upon receipt of this letter and your
approvals, would you please generate a letter to Planning as soon
as possible so we can receive our hearing date with current
Planning.
Respectfully Submitted
DESIGN CONCEPTS WEST
Christian Bachm~n
President
/vh
27715 Jefferson Ave., Suite 105D · Temecula, CA 92390 · (714) 676-7464
RiVrR iDE counc.u
DATE: September 25, 1989 Pm nnin DEPARQilEnC
~ Commissioner Turner
Eastern Municipal Water District
~rk Balys
Community Plans
TO: )ksessor
Butldtng and Safety - Land Use
Butldtng and Safety -Gradtng
Surveyor - Ken Tetch
* Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fi re Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Oavtdson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
County Superintendent of Schools
Rancho Californi'a Water
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
Caltrans
Temecula Union School Dist
Murrieta School Dist.
pi..ANOCT :31 1989
RIVERSIDE COUhTY
NING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 679 - (Tm-l) - E.A.
34317 - Trinity Christian Church - Design
Concepts West - Temecula Area - First
Supervtsorial District - N of Business
Park Dr., W. Single Oak Dr. - M-SC Zone -
5 Acres - RELATED: PP 9242 - REQUEST:
,'~.*-'.' ~ Church within industrial bldgs. - Mod 119
· - A.P. 921-020-055
/
Please review the case described ;,?above:' ai0n~ ?~t*th' ~he ' ~'~t~hed case mp. A Land
Division C~tttee meting *:has~'. :been t~ntatiyely,scheduled~fOr October 19, 1989. If it
clears, tt will then go to pu~ljF~heartn~'./i.-}~ i~ ~y i) L' .,:, ;. ~::,.,L~/:
Your c~nts and rec~ndattons?.Are ~ques:ted prior to October 19, 1989 in order that
~ include th~ tn the staff repo~t~fot.*thts particular case.
Should ~u have any questions regarding this' tt~, please do not hesitate to contact
~ndy Wilson at 787-1363.[ m ~J/ ~ j J
Planner
C0ffi~ENTS:
DATE: 'I)CT 2 5 1M~IGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
~HIE A~AP DRAFTSt~M~
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
STATE OF CAIJ~OIINIA~hI~, 11t~N~mOI~T&TICIN AND HOUSING AG~hlCY GEC~GE DEUKMF_IIAN, ~ovemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DI~ICT S, P.O. ~)X 231
~ 1714) ~
October 4, 1989
Development Review
08-Riv-15-4.98
Your Reference:
PUP 679
Planning Department
Attention Randy Wilson
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Public Use
Permit 679 located easterly of Business Park Drive and northerly
of Single Oak Drive near Rancho California.
This proposal is somewhat removed from an existing state highway.
Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal does
not appear to have a significant effect on the State highway
system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of
continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to
mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should be
provided prior to or with development of this area.
We have no specific comment on this proposal.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J.
Neville at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
East ern ,Mun ici I:,al' r er District
)ohfl M. CoudureS, Pre, klein
Richard C. Kelley, Vice PreskJem
Wm. G Akiridse
Chester C Gilbert
B, oclser D. S~ems
Juanit. L
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor
Riverside, Ca 92501
The District is responding to your request for coments on the subject project
relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this
project review.
The subject project:
-~ Is not within EMWD's:
~'- water service area
sewer service area
/ Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities
be served by EMWD:
if to
OCT 5 1989 L/dY
RIVERSIDE C:'. "'
PLAN""
Sewer Service
Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and
appurtenant works that ~ight.tdclude monitoring manholes, lift stations, force
mains, and effluen~ .disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot
ltnes/privgt~!and; :Fee paY~nt ~nd participation in regional sewers, treatment,
and effluenti'diSposal must be':~t. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations
will be a)lmved;
EASTERN MUNZcIpAL "ATER'~ISTRICT
Planntng Oepartmnt
2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, Calito£nia 92383-1300 · Telephone (714) 925-7676
county
March 9, 19~
Soil Tech
28700-B Las Haciendas, Suite ~03
P.O. Box 1568
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention:
Mr. H. Wayne Batmbrtdge
Mr. Anthony B. Brown
Mr. John T. Reinhart
Mr. David L. Jones
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Liquefaction Hazard
Project No.: ~97-PS-89
Plot Plan 10909
A.P.N.: 921-020-0S4
County Seologic Report No.
Rancho California Area
We have reviewed your report entitled 'Liquefaction Potential Evaluation, Plot
Plan 10909,' dated February 16, 1989.
Your report determined that the potential for liquefaction on the site is
considered nil. No recommendations concerning liquefaction mitigation were
made in your report.
It is our opinion that ~he report was prepared in a competent manner and
satisfies the 'additional information requested under the California
Environmental Qualtty Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan. Ftnal approval of the report is hereby given.
SAK:al
Very truly yours,
'RIVERSIDE couNTY PLANNING
. DEPART)lENT
Engineei'tng ~ologiVt ~F !
CEG-Z205h' - ' ' /
Warren James - Wespark, Ltd
Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety
Planntng Team 5 -Glorta Mactel
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787'6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
Tk.qlTY CHRISTIAN FELLO .,HIP
24935 Washington Avenue / P. O. Box 993/Mm'rleta, California 92362.0993 / (714) 677~093
FACILITIES USE SCHEDULE
REGULAR WEEKLY
SUNDAY 8
A.M. - NOON CONGREGATIONAL MEETING FOR
WORSHIP AND INSTRUCTION
(APPROX. 150 PERSONS)
&- 8 P.M.
WEDNESDAY 7 - 8:50 P.M.
WORSHIP & BIBLE STUDY
(APPROX. 50 PERSONS)
BIBLE STUDY & YOUTH GROUPS
(APPROX. 50 PERSONS)
OTHER TYPES OF USES
1) OFFICE OPEN REGULAR DAYTIME BUSINESS HOURS; APPROX. 5
PERSONS
2) ONE OTHER BIBLE STUDY ON ONE WEEKDAY; APPROX. 15
PERSONS
5) MEETINGS OF AUXILLIARY GROUPS, POSSIBLY 2-4 EVENINGS A
MONTH; APPROX. 5-20 PERSONS
PASTOR DAVE HALL 9/18/89
APPLICATION FOR LAND UIE AND DEVELOPiIENT
CHANGE OF ZONE NO.
CONDmONAL USE
PERMIT NO.
PARCEL MAP NO.
PLOT PLAN NO.
DATE: September 19,
TRACT ~P NO.
TEMPORARY U"~ FIERMrr NO.
VARIAN~E NO.
1989
A ~J~Nt INI~T~
1. ~nflNJ~: Trinitv Christian Church
~~: 24935 Washinoton Ave.. Hurr~ta, CA
T~NG: ( 714 )
hll~m~: 27919 Front Street, 1201, Temecula, CA 92390
Mlil~m~: 27715 Jefferson Ave. 1105C, Temecula, CA 92390
Tem~No.: ( 714 ) 676-7464 (e~m.-5~)
1. Pur~ of Request (~cri~ proje~): (Ordi~n~ ~8 ret no.)
Conditional Use ~ermi~ for tenant improvemen=s =o an exisCin9
structure to have*Bible Study Services.
c. ~~ m~~. o~
i. ~~~). 921-020-~
~ ~l~t~(~~~ 43300 Business Park Drive
S [[prcel_3 of PNt2.Q873.~,n b.ook. T31 PG 58-59 in County of Riverside,
. ]riom~Jl~rotherjPl~JJJ. N.N.~oo. an0u, ooralflJtes: /,~ S~ate of California
~. ~2~ ~-~ &,,, ..~~~/~_ .
~NA~ ~ ~ ~ER6)
KN~K~YN
~ 84g~on Toulml~ip RInOe
Llgll dltcdl~io~ ~ exlct Ilgll dleCWil~im~ II rlco~led M the Office o~ the County R~c:offler). MBy be BttmCh~d.
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3657
(714) 787-6181
46-20~ OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
REQUIRED PIIOPEHTY OWNERI NOTIFIOATION INFORMATION
APPLICATIONS FOR:
PARCEL MAPS
TRACTS
ZONE CHANGES
X OONDmONAL ~ PSRMI'rS
I~IBLIC U~E F~RMITS
WIND ENERGY CC)NV~R~ON SYSTEM
1~,.~0 PLOT PLANS Requiring Enviro,,mentai
Aileelmems tM ultif·mily ,Commercial,
MckJ~rial )
VARtANCES
I~MPORARY USE PSRMITS
i~te the ~
~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ i~ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~m'~ B~ t~ mi~ ~ t~t are withina
MSt Kullized
~ en~lo~ and
~~ ~M~,~,m~~t ~ ~ ~ ~e a~te.T~T~ ~r ~ ~ice
The above noted information may bi obtained by contacting · title inl~mnce coml~ny in the Riversic}e County ·rea.
PROPERTY OWNER~ CERTIFICATION
NAME:
'RTL E ! R~GISTRATION:
ADDRESS:
)
CASE NO.
~A. NO.
ITAFF USE ONLY
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
llleime gomMMe Plr~ IInd II (M thM ~xltt Iftd Ix~wide IN (M ~he ~1 m~lriIM requeited in ~ III. FiiI~ to ~ ~ ~y
My the leMew and I~X:~el M)~ur prMec~ If you ire ur~ble to pn~/t0e the informatim~ or you need ~ ~ f~l
Into to ~.-~ the Pk.Wn. De~rtment at C714) 787-e41&
1. What is the TotaJ AorM0e involved? ~
# "Yel,' imwicle Cele Number. AMo ~ the EnWonm~ Number, # ~ Irld Enviroflrrlentll Impllc~
La. NO. # Kn(Nm~ EIR NO.. .
~ 18 w NM:~ .vmilWe m the ~e? YESI~ NOD
ff 'No,' how Mr must the wirer line(I) be exten(N~ to ~ emvioe?
Number o~ feet or mM ~rontaq~
1. At ielit three (3) I~nmlmic photographs (color pltn~) of the project site, or in IMtll Dho40 d ~ ~e I~ ~r ~t~s
m utilized, kldude i map identlfyin0:
t~ The ama M ~em~e ol each ptKXo~aph
2. A Mr I:MI(:I4(~X~y (Xen:)x or limillr (X)l~ M the IIx:)rol~ite Dortion ot the U.S. Geological Sun~y quadrangle map, clelin-
eeUnO me W of the lm)Jec~ M~ AJeo nme me tme of me ma~
I I=l~'tily thlt I hive inva~lig~ thl W M Pl~ts IInd Il ind the &nlwlrl w true and oon1~t to the I~est ~ my
EOONOMIC AND HOUSING LOANS
Riverside County
MPRDXI#ATEL¥ $3.5 RILLION HAS BEEN #ADE AYAILABLE FOR ECO#0~IC DEVELOPHENT
IIOUSII~ LONffS IN IMB. RPPLICATIORS CAN BE FILED kl]TH THE RIVERSIDE COUr;T.¥
D£PARTHENT OF £CONOHIC AND COI, VCI~ITY DEYELOPflENT LOCATED AT 3499 TENTH
P.O. 50X 1180. RiVERS/DE, CALIFORNIA, 92502.
/
COt~NITY D~VELOP/4ENT BLOCK GRANTS (CO~) FROPI TH[ U.S. DEPARTmeNT OF tlOUS~ i
I
~DE~TE ]NC~ ~Y ~SZDENTS. THE LO~S HAVE BEEN USED FOR ~RCZAL,
l~I~, ~Sl~ ~ lK~~ P~JE~S.
CO~t"IEREZAL AND iNDUSTRiAL PROJECTS MIlCH SAY... OR CREATE JOBS FOR LOi¢
RESZD£NTS, CAN RECEIVE L~ INTEREST, PARTIAL FiNANCiNG. UP TO 33 PERCENT OF
THE TOTAL PR0,.1ECT CAN BE FINANCED. THE HAXIHUN LOAN 25 $5170,OO0 AND THERF.
C,IL~ OF $].5,000 LOAN.rD PER ~OB CREATED OR RETAZNED. THE HOUSZNG LOAN FUND
LOAN UP TO SO PERCENT OF THE COST FOR CONSTR',J:TION OR REHABILITATION OF
]NI::OI~[ HOUSZNG. FUNDS HiJST BE FULLY SECURED BY REAL PROPERTY AND SUBSTAKT:AL
DEVELOPER £OUZTY IS R£OUZRED.
T~ LOAN FUND IS OFFERED ~OiNTLY BY THE COUNTY AND SEVENTEEN OF ITS CiTiES.
FOR FURTHER INFOIb~TION, CONTACT YOUR CDBG AREA REPRESENTATIVE OR
STItODTBEC~ AT (?14) 785-9770.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT
COUNTY AI:)MINISTRATIVE CENTER, NINTH FLOOR
4080 LEMON STREET
RIVERSIDE, CALiFORNiA 92501-3657
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Dtrector
A PUBLIC IIEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING C(]IlISSION to
consider the application(s) described below. The Planntn9 Department has
tentatively found that the proposed project(s) will have no significant
environmental effect and has tentatively completed negative declaration(s).
The Planning Commission will consider whether or not to adopt the negative
declaration along with the proposed project at this hearing.
Place of Heartng: Board Roomt 14th Floor: 4080 Lemon Street~ Rtverstdet CA
Date of Hearing: YEDNESDAY~ JANUARY 31~ 1990
The ttme of heartng ts Indicated wtth each application 11sted below.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Department before the
hearing or may appear and be heard tn support of or opposition to the adoption
of the negative declaration and/or approval of this project at the time of
hearing. If you challenge any of the projects tn court, you may be limited to
raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described tn this notice, or tn written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The environmental
finding along with the proposed project application may be viewed at the public
Information counter ,Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 679, E.A. 34317, ts an application submitted by Trtntty
Christian Church for property located tn the Temecula Area and Ftrst
Supervtsortal 0tstrtct and generally described as N of Bustness Park
Drtve, g of Stngle Oak Ortve and made pursuant to Ordinance No. 348,
Riverside County Land Use Ordinance whtch proposes to locate a church
~thtn an extsttng Industrial complex.
TIME OF HEARING: 9:30 A.M.
P.O. BOX 755
TEMECULA,CA 92390
921-020-037
DBA -
41915 BUSINESS PI~K DR.
T~IECULA,CA 92390
921-020-043
247 KANSAS c~
EL EEGUND'D, C;~
921-020-044
PA~K. HEIGHTS PROP.
34 :. OLIV~ AVE. SUITE I
BUR~A~,CA 91502
921-020-049
RANCHO CALIF. DEV. CO.
P.O. BOX 755
TF. MECULA,CA 92390
921-020-054
RIO NEDO PARTNERS
ATTN: TOMISLAV GABR~C
14150 VINE PLACE
CERRITOS,CA 90701
921-020-055
COUII .U
ENVIRONMENTAL A~$ESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL A~SESSMENT (E.aC) NUMBER: 34317 MODULE NUMBER(s):
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s)AND NUMBER~(s): Public Use Permit No. 679
AI=PUCANI"S NAIdE: Trinity Christian Church
I~LAME OF PER~$) PREI=~d=IING E.ac: Randy Wi 1 son
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
119
DESCRII~I1ON (ir~Jude pro;x)~ed minimum lot size and uses as ml~)licabie):
Permit for the location of a Church with~an existing industrial building.
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES ~
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(m): 921-020-055
D. EXISTING ZONING: M~C IS THE PROI~:)SAL IN CONFORMANCE?
E. PROPOSED ZgNING: IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
F. STREET REFERENCES: North of Business Park Drive
West of Single Oak Drive
Oo
SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Section 11, Township 8 South, Ranqe 3 West
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONOFTHEEXlSTINGENVlRONMENTALSETFING OF THE PROJECTSITEANDITSSURROUNDINGS:
Project site is an existing industrial park which contains two co~pl.~ted buildings
and associated parking and landscaping. ,The area around the project site is in
industrial use and there are so~ areas of graded land and vacant land.
II. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the appropriate option(8) bek~ and I~Oceed accordingly.
ri All or part of the project Mte la in "Adopted Specific Plans," "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Cc~munity
Pm~y ~as". ~ SeCUon~ III, N (B and Comy), V and VI.
~x All or ~ ot the I~"oject ~ M in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV
(A, B and D only), V and VL
~bove. Comldete 8ectlo~ III, N (A, B, and E only), V and VI.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD6 AND RESOURCF.8 A&SE88MENT
HAZARDS
1- N
2. Y
3. N
4. N
5. N
8. N
7. N
8. N
9. N
10. N
11. Y
Aiquist-Priok) Special S~udies or County Fault
Hazard Zones (Fig. VI.l)
NA PS U FI (Fig. VI.3)
LiQuefaction Potantial Zone (Fig. Vi.1 )
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4)
Groundshaking Zone (Fig VI.l)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5)
~ (Riv. Co. 800 Scale S~o~e M~os)
Landalide Ri~k Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale
Seismic M~os or On-site Inspection)
NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6)
Rockfall Hazard (On-Nte
Exr~ve S~ls (U.S.D~ SOI~
Eroalon (U.S.D-~. ~oil Conservation
Serv~e Soil Surveys)
Wind Emoalon & Blow. md (Fig. VI.l,
Ord. 460, ~ 14.2 & Ord. 484)
D&m Inundation Ama (Fig. VI.7)
Floodplains (Fig. VI.7)
NA U R
(Fig. VI.8)
RESOURCES
Contmct Ma~)
28. N Wikllife (Fig. VI.36 - Vt.37) 35- N
30. N Mineral Re~ouroee (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42) 36.
81- N Energy ~ (Fig. Vt.43 - Vl.44) 37.
12. N Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11
& V1.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
13. I~ Railroad Noise (Fig. Vl.13-Vl.16)
NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 )
14. N Highway Noise (Fig. Vl.17-Vl.29)
NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 )
15. N OtherNoise
NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 )
16. ]~ Project Generated Noise Affecting
Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI.11 )
17. N Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. Vl.11)
18. N Air Quality ImDacts From Project
19. !~ Project Sensitive to Air Quality
20. N Water Quality Impacts From Project
21. N Project Sensitive to Water Quality
22. N I'lm'_~rdous Materials and Wastes
23. N Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - V1.31)
24. Other
25. Other
,~nic Highways (Fig. V1.45)
Historic Resources (Fig. Vl.32 - Vl.33)
Archaeological Resources
(Fig. Vl.32 - Vi.33 & V1.46 - V1.48)
Paleontologic~ Resources
(l=alemtoiogical Resources Ma,o)
Other
O~l~r
Definitions for land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Al~dicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
u - Gen~m.y Un~u~at~ R - Remrtcted A - G.ner~ly Amepta~k~
B - CondlflonMly Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
1. OPEN~=~OEANDOON~ATIONIVlAPDE~4ONATION(s): Not desiqnated as open space
~. LAND USE Pt.ANNIN~ ARE~ Southwest Territ0rv
& ~U~AREA. IFANY: Sout~.~t Are~_ Cnn~n'mity Plan
4. ~UNITY~AREA. IFANY: Southwest Area Community Plan
5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IFANY: ,Southwest Area Community Plan
~ COMMUNrrYPLANDE~IGNATION(m),FANY: LI- Light Industr.ibl
?. ~UIdMARYO~POUOIESAR=E~I~OPOBAb This cateqory is apolied to areas that have
been committeN to the Manufacturing-Service Commercial Zone {M-SC), and uses
permitted therein are consistent. (This proposal is for a church within an,
established industrial park. Churches may be located within any zone as long as
the use is compatible with the area development and land uses.)
For mil projects, iniclcate with a y~ (Y) or no (N) whether tony public facilities and/or services issues may significantly aff~'t
~ be affected by the prol~. All referenced figures are contained in the Commehermive C, enerml P~an. For any k~ue
PUBUC FACII. mF..~ AND SERVICES
1- N Ctmu~ticMn(Fig. N.l-IV.11. D~in 10. N
Sec. V Existing, Planned & Required Roads)
Bike Trail~ (Fig. N.12 - N.13)
W~ (Agency I.~)
Sewer (Agency I.~)
Fire Servi~ (Fig. IV.16 - IV. ia)
8hedlf .~wl=~ (Fig N.17 - N.18)
8cho~ {Fig. N.17 - IV. lC)
~ Wilts (Fig. N.17 - N.18)
I=~ks arid Recreation (Fig. N.19 - N.20)
2. N
$ N
4- N
5. N
8. N
7.,,N
8, N
11.N
13. N,
14 N...~
15. N
Equesfltan Trai~ (Fig. IV.19 - N.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale) Equestrian Trail Iv~)
Um~ (Fig. mW.5- mV.2S)
~ (1~). IV.17 - IVJ8)
Health Services (Fig. IV.17 - N.18)
A~ (~g. mm.l~ - m1.18.4,
[lo~ - II.lO. lo & N27 -
ember Project site is within the
new City of Tenmcula
D. If MI or prat of the project ~ b ~ "~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~", ~d b ~ ~ & ~m~ ~, ~te
gNestiona 1, 2, 3, 6 m~cl 7. Complete questiona 4, 5, 6 taxi 7 If it is in ~ Community Ptan.
Current land use categcx~ies) for the site ba~d on existing conditions. Also Indicate land use type
ILe. re~lentlal, mmmerctal, etc.)
3. If D.1 differs from D.2, will lhe difl~ence be resolved at 1~ development .~age? Explain:
,l 4. Community Plan designation(s): LT- Light Tndu~trial
5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies ~nd designations of the Community Plan?
If not, explain: Yes
6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses?
If not, explain: Yes
7. B~sed on this initial ~tudy, is the proposal consistent with the Compmlmsive General Plan?
ff not, reference by ~ction and Issue Number those issues identifying inconaiste~ies: Yes
E. If MI or part of lhe project site is in an Oper~ Space and Conservation designation, complete the following:
1. Slate the designation(s):
2. I~ the pmpo~ conaistsm with the designa~s)? If not, explain:
3. Baaed o~ this initial study, i~ the prol3o~l conNaent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
If not, reference by Section and league Number those issues ickmtifying inconsistencies:
V. INFORMATION ~OU#CES~ FelDe~8 OF FACT AND MIT~ATION MEASURE8
A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE~ME~ CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
18SUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED ~fES/NO~)A'rE)
B. For each issue marked yes (Y) undar Sections III.B amJ IV.B, identify the Section amd issue number amd do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. Ust all additional relevant data sources, including ~mcias consulted.
2. Slate all findings of fact regarding amvirottmental concerns.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.I.R.)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to
5. ff additional sheets are needed to complete this ~ction, check the box at the end of the section and attach
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
III Bll
IVB17
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
The oroiect site is located in an identified Liouefaction area. A ~tmJdy wm~
conducted on the site when the original industrial Dark was proposed. This
study found the potential to be "nil" for the sil;e. The County GeoloQist has
evaluated the studv and has written a letter dated 3-9-89. a CODV of which
is att,nh~. This letter is in aqreement with l~he study which indicates no
mitigation is needed.
The ootential for floodinQ exists on the prQp~rt¥. The Count,v Flood Control
Department has examined the project and project site and has found that the
necessary flood improvements have been constructed for mitigation of the
flood potential of the Site. A letter is attached from the County Flood
Department dated, 10-24-89 which indicates no mitiqation measures are
required for the present project.
No impacts to the new city of Temecula are identified. The project is
identified as being within the new city of Temecula.
V. INFORMATION ~OURCE~, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued)
SECTION/
~ NO. 8~)URCE$, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
~]xTM project will not have & Mgniflcant effect on the environment ~ncl a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
I"'1 The project could have I Iignificant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant
tffect in this ~ because the mitigation measures (~esoribed in Secttc~ V have been applied to the
project and a Negative Declamtt~ may be prepared.
(or)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
__ Case No. (Mod)PUP 679
EA No. ~_4317
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect.
PROJECT DESCRIRTION AND LOCATION:
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
COMPLETED
By Randy Wil~on _.
Date January 31. 19g0
See attached Initial S~dy
Title Planner II
Case No.(Mod)PUP ~79 Land Div Sch
Appl/Rep Desiqn Concepts West Developable Lots Dev. Ac
Date Sub~tted September 20, 1989 Open Space Lots O.Sp. Ac
Existing Zones M-$~
Changes of Proposed
Zones Only Zoning
Acreage
ADOPTED
Board of Supervisors
-~Plannin9 Commission
Area Planning Council
~ning Director
Person verifying adoption Randy Wilson
Date Jank(~r_v 31. 1990
(Other)
HEARING BODY OR OFFICER
l=l Board of Supervisors
~l~kPlanning Commission
O Area Planning Council
l-lP-~-~-ning Director
0 (Other)
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
ACTION ON PROJECT
~ Approval
0 Disapproval
Date January 31, 1990
Developable Lots Dev.Ac Open Space Lots O.Sp. Ac
Zones Only
Changes of ~pproved
Lones
Acreage
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration
has been adopted and may be examined at the. Planning Department at the address below.
Person verifying action Randy Wilson Title Planner II
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR
IVERSIDE, CA 92501
lstWhite Original - County Clerk
2rd Canary - Case File
3rd l~nk - Scheduling
295-31 (Rev. 10/83)
COUNTY STAMP ---~
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS
AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A.
as follows:
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order
Section 1:
That the following claims and demands as set forth in
Exhibit A have been audited as required by law, and
that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts
hereinafter set forth.
Section 2: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13rd day of March, 1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos/9025 03/07/~ 2:54pa
CK#
1001
1002
1003
100~
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
~17
1018
CK DATE
3/13/9o
3/13/9o
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
3/13/90
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS AGAINST CITY & PAYROLL
March 13, 1990
VENDOR
F. D. Aleshire
F. D. Aleshire
Bastanchury
Pat Birdsall
Briareus Corp.
C & C Locksmith
The Californian
County of Riverside
County
Administrative
Center
County of Riverside
Davlin
Freeman Office
Supply Products
Garnet Enterprises
Golden State
Trading Co.
GTE
HQ Office Supplies
J R Freeman Co.,
Inc.
John McTighe &
Assoc.
Lightfoot Planning
Group
DESCRIPTION
Reimbursement for Expenses
Travel Expenses 2/7 - 2/9/90 City
Manager's Dept. Annual Meeting-
LCC
Water Supplies
Reimbursement for Travel Expenses
Payroll Check Printing
Duplicate Keys/Service
Various Employment Ads
Repay County Loan
Office Supplies
Video Taping & Audio of Council
Meetings
Office Supplies
Personnel Consultant Services
Font Cartridges for Laser Printers
Telephone Charges thru 2/28/90
Neighborhood Watch Newsletter
IBM Office Supplies
1990 Review Forecast Rpt.
Temecula Photomaps
AMOUNT
138.57
420.82
24.00
812.86
136.17
56.00
34.56
100,000.00
2,284.41
900.00
48.69
660.00
597.79
843.24
392.91
1,018.61
1,608.00
300.00
1019 3/13/90 Petty Cash
--20 3/13/90 Press Emerprise
1021 3/13/90 RanTec Rubber
Stamp
Manufacturing
1022 3/13/90 Rose Perea
1023 3/13/90 Rancho News
1024 3/13/90 SCE
1025 3/13/90 Sir Speedy
1026 3/13/90 Stevens, Norman S.
1027 3/13/90 Strachota Ins.
Agency
1028 3/13/90 Towne Center
Stationers
1029 3/13/90 Kathleen Turner
__o30 3/13/90 Windsor Panners
Petty Cash for City Hall
Public Notice Ads
Stamps for City Hall and City Clerk
Reimbursement for Expenses
Employment Ad
Electric 1/24 - 2/22/90
Agenda Copying/Bus. Card Printing
Sports Fields Evaluation Service
Excess Liability Coverage
Office Supplies
Reimbursement for Expenses
March 1990 Rent & February 1990
CAM Charges
TOTAL PAYMENTS DUE:
(NOTE: Re: List of Demands dated 2/27 - Ck. #181 in the amt. of $120 has been VOIDED.)
PAYROLL:
319 2/26/90
320 2/26/9o
321 2/26/9o
322 2/26/90
323 2/26/90
324 2/26/90
F. D. Aleshire
June S. Greek
Cynthia C. Harmon
Rose R. Perea
Kathleen V. Turner
Lisa M. Carter
2/15/90 thru & incl. 2/23/90
2/15/90 thru & incl. 2/23/90
2/15/90 thru & incl. 2/23/90
2/15/90 thru & incl. 2/23/90
2/15/90 thru & incl. 2/23/90
2/15/90 thru & incl. 2/23/90
SUB TOTAL PAYROLL:
200.00
540.29
144.27
25.95
5.50
453.22
312.43
50.00
15,715.00
462.81
41.58
3.898.58
$132,126.26
1,846.03
574.29
658.44
393.94
484.03
336.70
$ 4¢93.43
316 3/1/90 EDD
5 3/1/90 Overland Bank
California Income Tax
Federal Tax Deposit
TOTAL PAYROLL:
216.35
1.613.42
$ 6,123.20
TOTAL PAYMENTS & PAYROLL:
$138,249.46
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: ~/~//~t, ~
F. D. Aleshire - Interim City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 1168 TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAY NEAR RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND FRONT STREET.
WHEREAS, Outdoor Media Group filed Plot Plan No. 1168 in accordance with the
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, which the City has adopted pursuant to Government
Code Section 57376;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Director considered said plot plan on January 16, 1990,
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's hearing, the Director denied said Plot
Plan;
WHEREAS, Outdoor Media Group appealed the Director's determination to the
City Council;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan
on February 27, 1990 at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Director's proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Plot Plan appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. All outdoor advertising displays ('q>illboards") must satisfy
Section 19.3 of the provisions of County Ordinance No. 348,
including the requirement that plot plan approval be obtained
pursuant to Section 18.30 (§ 19.3(b) (1).)
Resolution No. 90-
Page 2
B. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), 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 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.
C. Pursuant to Sections 19.3(a) (2) and 19.2(o), no billboards
may be located within the boundary of any scenic highway so
designated pursuant to the California Street & Highways Code.
D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30)
months following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general
plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its
decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking
other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each
of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or
action proposed will be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studies 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.
Resolution No. 90-
Page 3
(c)
The proposed use or action complies with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local
ordinances.
E. The Southwest Area Plan ("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 not
adopted SWAP as its General Plan. However, the City is
proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation o its General
Plan. Moreover, until the City adopts its General Plan, it
requires all development to be consistent with the SWAP,
because the future General Plan is likely to be substantially
similar to the SWAP.
F. The Plot Plan site proposed for the billboard does not
conform to the logical development of its proposed site, and is
not compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property. The proposed site is located in the heart
of the business district of the City and near the entrance to
"Old Town" Temecula. The appearance of a billboard at this
location would impair the logical commercial development of
the surrounding property.
G. Interstate 15 is designated a scenic highway in the SWAP.
The SWAP further provides that outstanding scenic vistas and
visual features, such as the ridgeline west of Interstate 15, shall
be preserved and protected. The large size of the billboard is
designed to be visible from the Interstate 15. Because the
billboard is designed to be visible from the Interstate 15, it is
inconsistent with the SWAP, and consequently, if the Plot Plan
were approved, it would likely be inconsistent with the City's
future general plan.
SECTION 2
Because the required findings for discretionary approvals found
in Section 18.30 of County Ordinance 348 and Government
Code Section 65361 cannot be made for the reasons cited
hereinabove, the City of Temecula City Council denies Plot
Plan 1168.
SECTION 3
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March, 1990.
Resolution No. 90-
Page 4
RON PARKS
MAYOR
ATrEST:
F.D. ALESHIRE
CITY CLERK
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of
March, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK
PROJECT SITE
TRACT 23160
(PARCEL 1 OF P.M. 23426)
10,75 ACRES
CONTAINS 1 LOT FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
(130 UNrTS)
JN 25218
TAVAGLIONE
Regional Location Map
PROJECT SITE
P,M. 23426
22.66 ACRES
2 LOTS
JN 25218
TAVAGLIONE
Regional Location Map
C~TY OF TEMECUL~
AGENDA REPORT
March 8, 1990
TO:
City Council/City Manager
FROM:
June Greek, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 6 - Traffic Committee Report
Sergeant Ron Roberts has informed me that the Traffic Committee is
in the process of making modifications to their report reflecting
recent decisions on the Mello-Roos District.
We will provide the City Council with this report as soon as it is
available. Sgt. Roberts advised that it may not be complete until
Tuesday just prior to your meeting.
City of Temecula
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
City
Council Meeting
March 13,
1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROSTER
E.B. ADAIR JR.
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN
450 W. STETSON AVE.
HEMET, CA 92343
CALIFORNIA
714/652-6202
SGT. RON ROBERTS
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
27685 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92390
714/676-0112
CHUCK COLLINS
RANPAC ENGINEERING
27447 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST
TEMECULA~ CA 92390
714/699-3972
714/676-7000
CURT HAWKINS
HAWKINS & ROBERTSON ASSOCIATES
28481 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TEMECULA. CA 92390
714/676=2443
KNOX JOHNSON
PRIVATE CITIZEN
29681 AVENIDA DEL SOL
TEMECULA, CA 92390
714/676-3946
JACK LEATHERS
PRIVATE CITIZEN (RETIRED CIVIL ENGINEER)
42623 REMORA ST.
TEMECULA. CA 92390
714/699-9563
DAVID LOWRY
DEVELOPER
27349 JEFFERSON AVENUE,
TEMECULA CA 92390
SUITE 206
RICHARD BARRERA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ROAD DEPT.
4080 LEMON STREET
7TH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CA 92502
714/676-4131
714/275-6800
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...................................................... 1
RECOMMENDATIONS ............. ii'''ii''i'''i ........... iiiiii 3
A. Action Steps...i.i ...................... 3
B. Cost Estimate ....................................... 4
D. Encroachment Permit[ .................. 5
E. Authority for Civilian Traffic Control .............. 6
TRAFFIC SURVEY A. Traffic Counts
B. Commuter Survey
C. Statistics (Bar Graph)
PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (City of Temecula) ............. ?
CITY OF TEMECULA
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
City Council Meeting
March 13, 1990
SUMMARY
During the past year, the Temecula area has experienced a
dramatic rise in traffic flow on the two major traffic arteries
over the 1-15 Freeway connecting the east and west sides of the
City. The two ma3or highways are Winchester Road (S/R 79) and
Rancho California Road.
The addition of stop signs on both overcrossings to alleviate
freeway off-ramp traffic have also appeared to exacerbate the
congestion during peak commute traffic hours, causing traffic to
back-up to nearby intersections and create near gridlock
conditions.
Morning commute traffic on Winchester Road appears to be
heaviest travelling westbound. Stop and go traffic on
Winchester Road starts east of Ynez Road and continues past the
1-15 Freeway overcrossing to Jefferson Avenue. A ripple effect
causes traffic to also back up on northbound Ynez Road from
Winchester Road.
Morning commute traffic on Rancho California Road appears to
equally divided. The heaviest traffic in both directions
continues to be east of the freeway due mainly to the close
proximity of Front Street and it's signalized intersection.
be
Afternoon commute traffic on eastbound Winchester Road backs up
from the 1-15 Freeway overcrossings to several blocks west of
Jefferson Avenue. As the result of northbound traffic on
Jefferson Avenue making right turns onto eastbound Winchester
Road during left turn phases, near gridlock has developed on
eastbound Winchester Road west of Jefferson Avenue. Vehicles
entering Winchester Road from parking lots and side streets add
to this congestion.
Afternoon commute traffic on eastbound Rancho California Road
backs up from the freeway overcrossings to west of Diaz Road.
Traffic on north and southbound Front Street also backup for
some distance due to the congestion on Rancho California Road
between Front Street and the overcrossing. Traffic on Rancho
California Road east of the freeway is usually free flow The
intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road has little
traffic congestion during commute traffic hours.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
Page 2
A study of the traffic patterns on the two congested highways by
this committee has revealed that the optimum solution would be
the replacement of the stop signs at the two overcrossings with
synchronized traffic signals and loop type onramps. This would
allow a much larger volume of traffic to move unrestricted
through the problem areas.
A traffic survey of 44 major companies in the City of Temecula
was also conducted by the committee. As a result, we have been
able to better determine our current and future needs in traffic
management on the two corridors.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee has determined that the California Vehicle Code
contains guidelines and authority for local authorities to adopt
rules and regulations for appointing persons other than traffic
officers to direct traffic. (see Attachment A)
While the privately funded traffic direction by California
Highway Patrol officers at the two overcrossings proved
successful, the cost was prohibitive. By utilizing part time
City of Temecula employees trained in traffic control, costs
could be reduced down to one quarter of the sworn peace officer
costs.
As a short term solution until signals are installed, the
committee is recommending the following action plan.
ACTION STEPS
Traffic Direction
Provide traffic direction at the following locations
during peak traffic hours utilizing part time City of
Temecula employees trained in traffic control.
a. -Winchester Road at s/b
b. Winchester Road at n/b
c. Winchester Road at Ynez Road.
d. Rancho California Road at s/b 1-15
e. Rancho California Road at n/b 1-15
Roadway Modifications
1. Winchester Road.
1-15 off-ramp.
1-15 off-ramp.
offramp.
offramp.
Create additional westbound traffic lane on
Winchester Road from Ynez Road to west of 1-15.
Post anti-gridlock warning signs on Winchester
Road at Jefferson Avenue.
Rancho California Road.
a. Lengthen left turn 1-15
Rancho California Road.
b.
freeway access lanes on
Post anti-gridlock warning signs on Rancho
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
Page 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
CIVILIAN TRAFFIC CONTROL PERSONNEL
COST ESTIMATE
Cost Estimate 8 $8.00 base pay an hour:
Actual cost $8.99 per hour per Civilian Traffic Control
Officer. Includes hourly wage and employer contributions
of $4.69 per $100 earned for Workmen Compensation (code
9410) and 7.65% for Social Security.
Cost estimates for implementation of proposed civilian traffic
control plan are as follows:
Five Traffic Control Officers @ $44.95 per hour.
Two Traffic Control Officers ~ $17.98 per hour.
Five Hours Traffic Control - Five Traffic Control Officers
@ $224.75 per day. (Morning and afternoon shift)
Five Hours Traffic Control - Two Traffic Control Officers
@'$89.90 per day.
Five Hours Traffic Control - Five Traffic Control Officers
@ $1,123.75 per week. (Monday through Friday)
Five Hours Traffic Control - Two Traffic Control Officers
@ $449.50 per week. (Monday through Friday)
It is recommended that the City Council also consider
implementing additional civilian traffic direction during the
noon hours on week days (ll30am-130pm). This would raise the
cost estimate to $1,573.25 per week or approximately $6,300 per
month of operation utilizing five Traffic Control Officers.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
Page 5
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Voluntary contributions from Chamber of Commerce members.
a. Trust fund concept.
b. Handled by Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce.
2. Interest from Signal Mitigation Funds.
a. Contact person - Ed Cooper, Riverside County Road Dept.
3. Merchants/Businesses purchasing blocks of time.
4. Partial funding from City of Temecula.
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
An Encroachment Permit will be required by CalTrans prior to
implementation of the civilian traffic control program. The
committee recommends that this process be started as soon as
possible.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
Page 6
ATTACHMENT A
USE OF CIVILIANS FOR LOCAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
Section 21100, Subsection (e) V.C. permits local
authorities to adopt rules and regulations for appointing
persons other than traffic officers to direct traffic
under the following circumstances.
a. Whenever traffic control devices are disabled or
otherwise inoperable.
b. At scenes of accidents or disasters.
c. At locations requiring traffic direction for orderly
movement of traffic.
Section 21100 V.C. prohibits the appointment of such
persons to perform traffic regulation duties unless and
until:
a. The local authority has approved an enabling ordinance
or resolution.
b. The local authority has submitted a proposed training
program for such persons to the California Highway Patrol.
c. The proposed training program has been approved by the
Department.
Section 21100.3 V.C. makes it unlawful to disobey traffic
directions given by a person appointed or authorized by a
local authority to regulate traffic pursuant to Section
21100 when such person is wearing an official insignia
issued by the local authority and is acting in the course
of his appointed duties.
The California Highway Patrol is not responsible for
conducting the training required by Section 21100 V.C.
However, assistance may be provided in the development of
their individual training programs·
a. Local authorities may develop their own traffic control
training program. In lieu of a locally developed program,
the Department's training program may be used.
TRAFFIC COUNTS - SEPTEMBER 1989 - 24 HOUR COUNT
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD/I-15 RAMPS:
South Bound Off Ramp 8,880
South Bound On Ramp 5,770
North Bound Off Ramp 6,600
North Bound On Ramp 8,670
Total 29,920
WINCHESTER ROAD/I-15 RAMPS:
South Bound Off Ramp
South Bound On Ramp
South Bound On Ramp
North Bound Off Ramp
North Bound On Ramp
Total
9,120
3,015
2,370
4,600
9,750
28,855
(Loop)[1]
[2]
WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH OF YNEZ - ALL LANES:
17,000 to 17,100
Estimated Annual Growth 7% to 8%
[1] West Bound on Winchester Road
[2] East Bound on Winchester Road
Data from Donna Crowley - Caltrans 383-4226
COMPANIES CONTACTED FOR COMMUTER SURVEY
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc.
American Industries
Banner American Products
BCI General Contractors
Bedford Properties
Bianchi International
BW/IP International
Cal-West Rental Center
Cal. Geo. Tex, Inc.
Central Power Engineering
Century 21
Coleman Homes Inc.
Creative Kids Nursery School
CTS Corporation
Davidson Associates
ECO Farms Corp.
General Dynamics Financial Services
Halstead Industrial Products
Honda of Temecula
Hudson Oxygen Therapy Sales Co.
International Rectifier
Ivonyk Group Services
M & J Ramsey Corp.
Marie Callender's
Maurice Printers
McDonalds
Milgard Mfg., Inc.
Overland~Bank
Pamco/Rancon Financial
Payless Northwest
Pichel Industries
Plant Equipment Inc.
Polycraft, Inc.
Press Enterprise
Price Security Systems
Rancho California Water District
Ranpac
RFL Surveying, Inc.
Soil Tech, Inc.
Solid State Stamping
Temecula Valley Pipe & Supply
US Thermo Plastics, Inc.
Western Lumber
TOTAL
No. of Day
Shift Emp.
6OO
100
5O
30
25
200
150
20
17
21
32
15
16
25
23
8
142
28
33
45O
3OO
2O
14
5O
17
140
110
5O
200
4O
30
75
15
10
7
124
175
4O
35
43
2O
25
44
3569
,,:,1
,",1
S33ADqdN3 JD UqgNQN
£
£
£
~ Z
CITY OF TEMECUL~
CIRCULATION INFRASTRUCTURE
FREEWAY INTERCHANGES & BRID~ES:
1. Hiqhwa¥ 79 (South} at 1-15:
Freeway ramps to be widened, funded and designed by
Assessment District 159. Signals by Mitigation
District, construction in 1991.
2. SantiaGo Road Overpass:
Complete.
3. Rancho California Road Interchanqe:
Freeway off ramps to be widened, funding and design
by developer. Plans in 2nd Plan Check at Caltrans
and County.
Signalization plans were held up by PSR (Project
Study Report) at Caltrans. County has contracted
design, Federal Aid Interstate Funds will finance
construction.
Due to Senator Bergeson's intercession, the PSR and
Plan Checking is to be fast-tracked by Caltrans,
expect PSR approximately within a month, and
optimistically expect start of construction this
fall.
4. Apricot OverDass:
Funding and design is proposed in Mello-Roos
District, construction in 1991.
5. Winchester Road Interchanqe:
Signalization of off-ramps are a condition on
developer., plans have been submitted for 1st Plan
Check to Caltrans. No PSR was required. Caltrans
will fast-track plan checking due to pressure by
Senator Bergeson, expect construction late 1990.
Conceptual plans for widening the bridges and
constructing a north bound loop on-ramp have been
submitted to Caltrans by Assessment District 161,
but no funding has been identified for final design
and construction.
City of Temecula
Circulation Infrastructure
page two
Date Street Overpass:
Contribution to construction of the overpass/
interchange has been made a condition on several
developments. Caltrans and Federal Highway Dept.
object to an interchange due to close proximity to
1-15/215 Branch and Winchester Road interchange.
No definitive action has been initiated.
II.
ROADWAYS (see General Plan Circulation Element)
1. Expressways:
Highway 79 (South) to be widened to six lanes from
1-15 to Kaiser Parkway, four lanes from Kaiser
Parkway to Butterfield Stage Road. Design and
funded by Assessment District 159, construction
1991.
2. Urban Arterial: (134 foot R/W, Std 100A)
Highway 79 (North), Winchester Road, to be
widened to six lanes from 1-15 to North of
Murrieta Hot Springs Road. PSR approved in
February, design and project report underway.
Design and funding by Assessment District 161.
Expected construction 1-15 to Margarita, Fall
1990; Margarita to Murrieta Hot Springs, 1992.
Ynez Road to be widened to four lanes from
Rancho California Road to Solana Way and to six
lanes from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
Design and funding proposed by Mello-Roos
District, construction 1991.
3. Mountain Arterial: (120 foot R/W, Std 100B)
None in City limits.
4. ~rterial: (110 foot R/W, Std 100)
ae
Pala Road improvement a condition on developer,
probable construction 1991.
Santiago Road from Front Street to Ynez Road
is partially paved, with no funds identified
for completing the broken link from Ynez Road
to Margarita Road.
City of Temecula
Circulation Infrastructure
page three
Pauba Road East of Butterfield Stage Road is
being designed and funded by Assessment
District 159, construction 1990.
Rancho California Road East of 1-15,
construction underway or completed to
Butterfield Stage Road as condition of
development, except from Via Los Colinas to
Humber which is proposed to be completed by
Mello-Roos District in 1990.
Se
Date Street from Diaz Road to 1-15 is being
built as a condition on development; from 1-
15 to Margarita Road is in preliminary
tentative map planning; from 1-15 Northwest to
Murrieta Hot Springs Road a combination of
developer conditions and Assessment District
161, probable construction in 1991.
fe
Murrieta Hot Springs Road West of Date Street
to Butterfield Stage Road is being designed and
built by Assessment District 161, construction
1990.
Nicolas Road is being completed by a
combination of developer conditions and
Assessment District 161 funding from Winchester
Road East to the Rancho Temecula boundary.
Construction 1990. No funding has been
identified for the remainder to Butterfield
Stage Road.
Butterfield Stage Road from Highway 79 (South)
to Rancho California Road is being designed and
built by Assessment District 159 in 1990.
Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California
Road North to Solana Way will be a development
condition. No funding is identified for
Butterfield Stage Road North of Solana Way.
Margarita Road from Highway 79 (South) to Pauba
Road has not been funded. From Pauba Road
North to Solana Way, Margarita Road has been
competed by development conditions. The Mello-
Roos District proposes to complete Margarita
Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road in
1991, and Assessment District 161 is designing
and funding the center section from Winchester
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road for
construction in 1990.
City of Temecula
Circulation Infrastructure
page four
Se
Via Santa Rosa is not a feasible alternative
as the foothills require substandard slopes.
Major Hiqhwa¥ (100 foot R/W, Std 101)
Kaiser Parkway from Highway 79 (South) North
to Pauba Road, and from Rancho Vista Road North
to Solana Way is now being built as conditions
on development. Assessment District 159 is
designing and funding the portion from Pauba
Road to Rancho Vista Way, construction 1990.
Santiago Road from Ynez to Front Street is
complete.
Front Street from 1-15 North to Old Town
Temecula is being completed as conditions of
development; Front Street in Old Town will not
change. Front Street from Old Town to Rancho
California Road needs a second lane on West
side to permit two lanes of South bound traffic
through signal at Rancho California Road, not
funded.
d. Jefferson Street is complete or under
construction.
e. Winchester Road West at 1-15 is complete.
fe
Diaz Road North of Jefferson is being built as
a condition of development, South of Jefferson
the Westerly half is complete, but no funding
is identified for the East half.
The center 40 feet of De Portola Road West of
Margarita Road is under construction by
Assessment District 159. The remainder will
be built as conditions of development.
Ynez Road South of Rancho California Road to
Rancho Vista is paved to partial width, and
will be finished by development conditions.
Secondary Hiqhways:
Rainbow Canyon Road is complete from Pauba Road
South along development fronting by development
conditions. Further improvements to the South
not envisioned.
City of Temecula
Circulation Infrastructure
page five
be
fe
Jedediah Smith Road from De Portola Road to
Margarita Road is partially paved, no funding
is identified for full width construction.
De Portola/Ynez Road from Rancho Vista Road to
Margarita is partially paved, no funding is
identified for full width construction.
Pauba Road from Ynez to La Prima Vera is
completed bydevelopment conditions. Easterly
to Margarita Road, Pauba Road is two lanes with
no funding identified for completion. Pauba
Road East of Margarita will be improved to
center 40 feet or half-width by Assessment
District 159 in 1990 and development
conditioned to completion.
Rancho Vista Road is complete or under
constr~ction from Ynez Road to Butterfield
Stage Road.
Rancho California Road is complete from Front
Street West to Business Park Drive, no funding
is identified for the continuation westerly.
Overland Drive/Apricot Road is proposed by the
Mello-Roos District in 1991.
Solana Way is partially paved by development
conditions from Ynez Road to Del Rey Road. No
funding is identified for frontage of existing
single family lots.
La Serena Road is being completed from
Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road by
developer conditions.
III.
BRIDGE~
1. Temecula Creek:
Pala Road over Temecula Creek is to be funded
by development conditions. Construction date
not known.
Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road over
Temecula Creek are being designed and built by
Assessment District 159, in 1990.
City of Temecula
Circulation Infrastructure
page six
Murrieta Creek:
ae
No funds have been identified for construction
of Via Santa Rosa or replacement of Main Street
Bridges.
Rancho California Road and Winchester Road
bridges are completed.
Date Street bridge is conditioned upon
development.
Santa Gertrudis Creek:
The 1-15 bridge and Ynez Road bridge are
complete.
Assessment District 161 is designing and
funding bridges at Margarita Road and North
General Kearny Road, construction in 1990; and
Winchester Road Bridge in 1991.
IV.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Are identified on the attached list from Riverside County
Road Department.
C I T Y OF TEME C UL A
RANPAC GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULA T/ON ELEMENT
~t~RIAL (MRB~H) HIGHWay
STANDARD NO. IOOA
REVISIONS
Couely of Rive reide
~ ~ ~1~ £
UI~HWAY
STANDARD NO. IOOC
9-88
STANDARO NO. I00
,,!' _L_.' _
Cmm~/o1' Ri~,.~de
/"/'/)1~'.4/. $?'~'c"7'$~"~Z'/O/V
Se~on#ory Highway
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
ROAD DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION
Proposed Rancho California Area Traffic Signal Projects
September 15, 1989
~-'-Existing Traffic signals and Lighting:
LOCATION
1. Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road
2. Rancho California Road and Diaz Road
3. Rancho California Road and F~ont Street
4. Rancho California Road and Ynez Road
5. Rancho California Road and Moraga Road
Phase
1. Via
2. Del
3. Margarita Road and Rancho
IV (a) (County Administered):
LOCATION
Montezuma and Front Street
Rio Road and Front Street
California Road
4. Margarita Road and Rancho Vista Road
5. Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista Road
6. Margarita Road and Moraga Road
· 'Page ~- ·
Phase IV (b)
2
3
4
5
6
(County Administered):
LOCATION
1 Ynez Road and Santiago Road
Margarita Road and Pauba Road
Margarita Road and Solana Way
Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road
Ynez Road and Pauba Road
Ynez Road and Solana Way
Assessment District Projects:
1 Route 79
2 Route 79
3 Route 79
4
5
6
7.
8.
9~
Route 79
Route 79/Front Street and Route
LOCATION
and Ynez Road
and Margarita Road
and Nicolas Road
and Murrieta Hot Springs Road
15 (Interchange)
Route 79
Route 79
Route 79
Route 79
and La Paz Street
and Pala Road
and Margarita Road
and Butterfield Stage Road
Interchange Projects:
1. Route
2. Route
LOCATION
15 and Rancho California Road (County Administered)
15 and Winchester Road (Route 79) (State Administered
sd
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
AB#:
MTG: 03-13-90
DEPT: CM
TITLE:
CUP-3076 AUTO DEALER ON WEST
SIDE OF YNEZ, SOUTH OF WINCHESTER
DEPT HD.
CITY ATTY
CITY NGR
RECO~NDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council set mi.~ matter for a hearing to consider modifying the
conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
County Planning Staff has recommended approval of a proposed toyota car dealership with
conditions specified.
One of the conditions requires the developer to mitigate traffic deficiencies in the Ynez-
Winchester Corridor. The following conditions are required.
1. Pave four lanes of Ynez Rd. from Winchester south to the project;
2. Secure an executed agreement with CalTrans to construct signals on Winchester at 1-15;
3. Widen the Ynez and Winchester intersection; and
4. Install signal.
The owner has requested a waiver of these conditions due to the fact that all of the conditions
are being done by others.
Encl:
Letter from Andrews
1\CMpt\O313~O.OZZ -1- 03/07/~0 1:20F~
March 7, 1990
Toyota of Temecu!a Valley
26631 Ynez Road
Temecula, California 92390
Mr. ~rank Aleshire
City Manager - City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
Dear Mr. Aleshlre,
This correspondence is to comment on the current pro~ress
of our new Toyota Dealership planned for Inez Road, here in
Temecu!a.
If 'you recall, my partner Mr. Dan Atwood and I visited
your office on January 2&, 1990. The plot plan was reviewed
along with several other items, includin~ our time schedules.
On Wednesday, February 1~, 1990, our project came before
the Riverside County Planning Commission as Fast Track NO. 038-89
CUP No. 3076, Amended No. l, and was APPROVED subject to certain
conditions.
While some cf these conditions will make the undertakin~
very difficult, certain stipulations outlined in the Road
Commissioners letter dated February 13, 1990 (si~ned by
Mr. L.A. Toerper) make this project imoossible'. (Please refer
to attached letter , items l, 2, 3, ~, l0 and 17).
These items were specifically addressed to the County
Commission at this meetinM on said date, as follows:
* It is unfair t~t before issuance of a buildln~ permit
and/or occupancy these stipulations, which were needed
when we started this venture 2 years a~o, be placed
on a single project like ours.
The eztim~.ted co~t of the~e ~orrectlons is ~8 to 10
million - our whole project is estimated at~ million.
We will a~ree to complete our f~ir sh~re of off-site
improvements, but why should we have to beqr the
entire cost or the responsibility cf som_ethin~ that
benefits everyone?
The counties answer in effect was: "While, we realize
this may ncr be quite fair, take it up with the new City of
Temecula - they have the power to over~urn or modify any of
these conditions."
Some salient points about our project:
We are not huge developers or absentee owners, Just
two local business people who have invested their "all"
in a dream to open a Toyota Dealership in Temecula.
We are willing to do our part and share the desire to
improve Temecula - Just like everyone else.
Our project is being financed/funded locally through
the Bank of Commerce here in Temecula; the County of
Riveraide, and the ~mall Business Association.
Ye are plannin~ to fill 40-45 Jobs in our community
within the first year, and up to 70 Jobs within 5 years.
We expect to ~enerate $18 to 20 million in ~ales the
first year, and up to-~$~O million within 5 years.
* We are members of the Chamber of Commerce, and expect
to provide sound business "input" to our community.
Our $3200 Wilber Smith Trafflc~Study indicated: "The
addition of the relatively sm~ll increment of Toyota
of (T~mecula Valley) traffic will further reinforce
the need for these improvements but will not contribute
to any more intersection capacity thresholds be!nm
exceeded ." -
have serious time restraints as follows:
We must immediately open Escrow to purchase subject .
land from Toyota Motor Sales, USA. (A time table of
120 days has been established by contract.)
* Our letter of Intent with Toyota to complete this
dealership will expire in June 1990.
Toyota's basic position is "If we can't ~et this project
completed in two (2) years, maybe we should look else-
where."
We respectfully request the fo!lowing:
Items 1, 2, D, 4, 10 and 17 be removed as mitigation
measures for us to receive buildin= and/or occupancy
permits.
* That this decision be voted and decided upon by the
City CounciX on Tuesday, March 13, 1990.
2
It is my understandin~ that all of these conditions will
be satisfied either through the approval of the Community
Facilities District No. 88-12 (Mello-Roos), which we support;
and/or various other Assessment District(s) currently under
des l~n.
This project is in danger of goin~ away. Ne need a decision
now, so our tax dollars can help Temecula continue to be a better
place to work and live.
~e~it~here ly yours,
M. Andr ew~
Vice President & General Manager
CC:
Mayor Ronald J. Parks
Councilwoman Pat Birdsall
Councilman Xarel Lindemans
Councilwoman Peg Moore
Councilman Sal Munoz
John Matt - General Mana=.er
Toyota Re,ion
3
LeRoy D. Smoot
ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
February 13,
T[~.l:i~-ION[ (714J 7i?-1114
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon St~t
Riverside, CA 92501
Re:
(Auto Sales Facility)
CU 3076 - Amend ti
Team 5 - SMD #9
AP #111-111-111-9
FTA #038-89
Ladies and Gen~lemenz
The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the traffic
study for the above referenced project. The traffic study has
bccn prepared in accordance with accepted traffic engineering
standards and practices, utilizing County approved guidelines. We
generally concur with the findings relative to traffic impacts.
The study indicates a projected Level of Service "D" at
Winchester Road and Ynez Road. The Southwest Area Comunity Plan
identifies peak hour Level of Service "D" as acceptable. As such,
the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan policy.
The following conditions of approval incorporate mitigation
measures identified in the traffic study which are necessary tn
achieve the required leve~ of service:
~ ~ to occupapc~a minimum of 48' of paved width shall
De provided along Ynez Road from Winchester Road south to
the northerly project boundary.
agreement with the State of California Department of
Transportation shall be provided for the construction of
signals on the Winchester Road/Interstate 15 ramps.
traffic study recommended
southbound right turn lane,
one southbound left turn
intersection of Ynez Road and
constructed to the following
intersection geometrics: one
one southbound through lane,
lane, one northbound left turn
lane, one northbound through lane, one eastbound left turn
lane, two eastbound through lanes, one eastbound right turn
lane, one westbound left turn lane, two
westbound through lanes, and one westbound right turn lane.
CU 30/6 - Amend ~1
February 13, 1990
?age 2
This lane configuration is the minimum required to meet the
General Plan requirements for this project. ~Coordi~ation with
othe. r nearby ,voj~_t.~ is hiqhl¥ recommended
~n im ro~nents needed.
(4.) -Prior t.o occ. upancy or any .u .. allowed by this permit, the
~ -following improvements shall exist at no cost to any
government agency: the intersection of Ynez Road and
Winc~s~r Road must be signalized.
With respect to the conditions of approval for the
referenced exhibit, the Road Department recommends that the
applicant provide the following street improvements, street
improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Rivers id, County Road Improvement Standards
iOrdinance 461). It is understood that the exhibit correctly
shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses
with appropria~e Q' s, and that their omission or Ullacceptability
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 Commissioner's Office.
~ermit, the ~apPlican~ ~aI£ comple%~ the---f6 o~g conditions at
no cost to any government agency:
sufficient right of way along Ynez Road shall be conveyed
for public use to provide for a 67 foot half width right of
way.
6. The traffic signal mitigation has been met on this project.
It was paid on Aug. 29, 1984 on underlying PM 19145.
~Pr~or ~ occupancy or any use allowed by this pe~t,,the
~p~icant s~a££ construct the ~ollowlng at no cost tu any
government agency~
Ynez Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter
located 55 feet from centerline and match up asphalt
concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing
paving as determined by the Road Co~nissioner within a 67
foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with
County Standard No. 100A.
Asphalt 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 conform to Section 37, 39 and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
cU 3076 - Amend ~1
February 13, 1990
Page 3
Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along
Ynez Road in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalk).
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and aliqnment as approved by the
Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of
road improvements does not imply acceptance for main-
tenance by County.
11.
Drainage control shall be as ~er Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
12.
Ail work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
13.
The single driveway shall conform to
Riverside County Standards.
the applicable
14.
The single entrance driveway shall be channelized with
concrete curb and gutter to prevent "back-on" parking and
interior drives from entering/exiting driveways for a
minimum distance of .35 feet measured from face of curb.
15.
The street design and improvement concept of this project
shall be coordinated with 823-S.
16. Street lighting shall be required for a discretionary
permit in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461. The
County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whete~
~his proposal qualifies under an existing assessment
dis'trfCt or not. 'If not, the land owner shall file, after
receiving tentative approval, for an application with LAFCO
for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment
District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section
56000.
/17.~ ~Astriping plan_~_A~_v~=~-~(~ for Ynez Road. The removal of
the existing striping shall be the--~r~sponsibility of
applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by
County forces with all incurred costs bo~Ik~ by ~L~e
applicant.
18. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Department standards and require approval
by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
C~ 3676 - Amend #1
February 13, 1990
Page 4
LAT: Jw
mechan/sm as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape
plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36 ") . Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict only
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
Lawrence A. Toerper
Road Division Engineer
CU 5076 LAND USE
GRADED
VAC
INDUSTRY
DAIRY
AUTOMALL
UC
.,INDUSTRIAL ~' '
,, ,,~/--, . ,./'
PARK. ' VAC
VAC
400'
App. DAN ATWOOD ~ KEITH ANDREWS
Use AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP
Area RANCHO CALIFORNIA
Sec. I T. 8S, R.:SW. Assessor's Bk.
Circula~ YNEZ RD.
EJernlmt SOLANO
Rd. ~k. I=Ig. 55C Date 1/27/90
Sup.DisL
921 Pg. 08
--MAJOR-- I00'
I00'
RIVERSZDE (ZX,INTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATIONAL MAP
NO $CALE
i County Ioan he!ping out
'T I de le
emecu, a 'Toy ta :. a r
~: ~ RosALIND SMITH lMIsed'.~J'oyota Motor Sales USA'.
.,.:. :L ?.-::~[he Press-Enterprise ..... ;
..:~ ~Alded by a $500,000 ionn
from Riverside County, Toyota of
Temeculn Valley plnns to open
this* summer near Temecula's
bm'geonlng auto park.
. Temecula residents' Keith An.
drews and Dan Atwood have se-
cured an economic development
loan from the county F. eonomic
Development Agency to' acquire
the land, build and finance the $4
million project, Andrews said.
Other loans were obtained from
the Bank of Commerce-and the
Small Business Administration, he
said.
David McElroy, director of
the development agency, said the
loan was approved by. the board
of supervisors. "TheY'll get the
money," McF_.lroy said. ".It comes
before the board on the 13th for
final approval, but that's a formal°
Andrews said Im and Atwood
workec~ with the ¢tty o! Temecuta
for twb months on the proposal
and are in escrow with Torrance-
· lac. 'to/.~Ouy the .5~acre' parcel on
· Ynez ROad.. They plan to open in
June 0/"July, Andrews said.'
. :L~,It'8 a little difficult because
we,r~,z~ht in the. middle of the
.~~ dlstriCt~',"be.,~nid;, re-
'' a $16' million-proposed
.-nnsesnmlL~mnt district .at would pay
and ~ther.-improve-
~%' ,...l~e dealership will have
·-abedt:;~00 vehicles in its inven-
~tory.~valued at about $3 million,
:An. deg'q~ said. "The primary em-
pliaSls,~..will be on quality service
and paris.."he said.',
Although Toyota of Temecula
'Valley will be independent of the
auto .park association iniUally,
Andrews said he plans to join the
autO' park.
;~Temecula is a good locaUon,
Andrews:said. "The. 'nearest
. Toyota dealers 'are in ESCondido,
- RiverMde and Corona. But there
· are l~ots-bf Toyotas registered in
localser~ttce for all those Toyota
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 13, 1990
City Council/City Manager
Mary Jane Henry, Interim Finance Director
Budget for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the budget for the
seven months ending June 30, 1990 as presented
or revised.
DISCUSSION:
The attached budget document summarizes the City's
expected revenues and expenditures for the seven
months ending June 30, 1990. At June 30, the City's
fund balance reserve is anticipated to be $956,470.
Revenues from the State of California are expected
to be $1,326,000.
Real property transfer tax of $89,000 is estimated
to be received from the County of Riverside. The
City is not entitled to receive any property tax
apportionment for the 1990 fiscal year.
The City anticipates receiving $127,000 in transient
occupancy tax during the seven months ending June 30,
1990.
Appropriations for the 1990 fiscal year are $365,000
for employee services, $435,000 for operations and
maintenance $239,000 for capital outlay and $100,000
for contingency.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Estimated revenues for the 1990 fiscal year are
$2,095,000. Appropriations for the seven months
ending June 30, 1990 are expected to be $1,139,000
resulting in a $956,000 fund balance reserve at
June 30, 1990.
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Temecula Budget for the Seven Months Ending
June 30, 1990.
City of Temecula
Budget Summary
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Estimated Revenues
General Fund
Road Fund
Total Revenues
Estimated Appropriations
General Fund
Road Fund
Total Appropriations
Fund Balance:
Reserved for Road Improvements
Reserved for Contingencies
Total Fund Balance Reserves
$488,648
$467,822
$1,606,607
488,648
2,095,255
1,138,785
0
1,138,785
$956,470
X
x ~
Z Z
LJ.J CE 0
<~ Z Z
qO 0 ~
X
iii
X
Z
Q~
0
LU
LLJ
uJ
z
z
Z
z
0
z
0
r~
Z
Z
l-
W
>-
0
Z
C9o
mO
0
0
Z
LLJ
Z
0
0
0
O~
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
0
City of Temecula
Estimated Revenues
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
General Fund
Sales Tax
Motor Vehicle in Lieu
Cigarette Tax
Real Property Transfer Tax
Franchise Fees
Transient Occupancy Tax
Contributions
Total
$766,465
529,025
30,447
89,010
40,000
126,660
25,000
1,606,607
Road Fund
Section 2106
Section 2107
Section 2107.5
Measure A
Local Transportation
Total
90,971
174,288
6,000
109,136
108,253
488,648
$2,095,255
Total Revenue
Source:
John McTighe & Assoc.
Revenue Update, January 18, 1990
city of Temecula
Estimated Appropriations
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
General Fund
Personal Services
Salaries &
Employer taxes
Operations and Maintenance
Legal Services
Consulting
Insurance
Rent - Office/Meeting
Rent - Equipment
Utilities
Telephone
Supplies
Printing/Publishing
Travel & Meetings
Account/Exhibit
1
01-130-999-42-5246
2
01-199-999-42-5200
3
01-199-999-42-5238
3
3
3
01-120-999-42-5256
01-100-999-42-5258
$364,556
105,000
183,800
32,500
27,600
5,000
2,400
6,000
34,500
18,000
20,000
Capital Outlay
Computer Hardware/Software
Office Equipment
Office Furnishings
Contingency
4
5
01-199-999-44-5600
79,929
59,500
100,000
100,000
Total Appropriations
$1,138,785
Exhibit 1
City of Temecula
Salaries & Benefits - Permanent Employees
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Department/Title/
Account
city Council
01-100-999-40-5100
City Manager
Monthly Salary
Number of Number of
Minimum MaximUm Average Positions Months
$300 $300 $300 5 7
FY 1990
$10,500
City Manager (iht)
01-110-999-40-5118 8,667
8,667 8,667 1 7
60,669
City Manager
Assistant to CM
Admin. Assistant
Executive Secty
Secretary
office Assistant
01-120-999-40-5100
01-120-999-40-5109
City Clerk
6,667
2,807
2,105
1,966
1,454
1,303
7,500 7,083 1 2
3,495 3,151 1 2
2,621 2,363 1 2
2,447 2,207 1 7
1,811 1,633 1 4
1,624 1,464 2 4
Salaries
Benefits Rate
Benefits
Salaries & Benefits
14,167
6,302
4,726
15,446
6,530
11,708
58,878
3O%
17,663
76,542
Dep. City Clerk
Admin. Secretary
office Assistant
01-110-999-40-5100
01-110-999-40-5109
2,414 3,006 2,710
1,622 2,020 1,821
1,303 1,624 1,464
1 7
1 3
1 4
Salaries
Benefits Rate
Benefits
Salaries & Benefits
18,970
5,463
5,854
30,287
30%
9,086
39,373
Exhibit 1
City of Temecula
Salaries & Benefits - Permanent Employees
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Department/Title/
Account
Monthly Salary
Number of Number of
Minimum Maximum Average Positions Months
FY 1990
Finance
Dir. of Finance
Accountant
Account Clerk
Admin. Secretary
01-140-999-40-5100
01-140-999-40-5109
5,236 6,519 5,878 i 3
2,498 3,111 2,805 i 3
1,600 1,993 1,797 I 4
1,622 2,020 1,821 i 4
Salaries
Benefits Rate
Benefits
Salaries & Benefits
17,633
8,414
7,186
7,284
40,516
3O%
12,155
52,671
Community Development
Dir. of Planning
Senior Planner
Assoc. Planner
Asst. Planner
Planning Tech.
Admin. Secretary
Office Assistant
01-160-999-40-5100
01-160-999-40-5109
5,236
3,424
2,885
2,464
2,193
1,622
1,303
6,519
4,236
3,592
3,068
2,731
2,020
1,624
5,878
3,830
3,239
2,766
2,462
1,821
1,464
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Salaries
Benefits Rate
Benefits
Salaries & Benefits
3 17,633
3 11,490
3 19,431
3 8,298
3 7,386
4 7,284
4 5,854
77,376
3O%
23,213
100,588
Exhibit 1
City of Temecula
Salaries & Benefits - Permanent Employees
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Department/Title/
Account
Monthly Salary
Number of Number of
Minimum Maximum Average Positions Months
Management Information Systems
FY 1990
Director of MIS
01-180-999-40-5100
01-180-999-40-5109
4,148 5,165 4,657
i 4 18,626
Benefits Rate 30%
Benefits 5,588
Salaries & Benefits 24,214
Source:
Totals
IEM Consulting - Salary Report
28 $364,556
Exhibit 2
city of Temecula
Consulting Contracts
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Personnel
Personnel
Recruiting
01-150-999-42-5248
01-150-999-42-5248
$30,000
20,000
$50,000
Finance
01-140-999-42-5248
20,000
City Council
01-100-999-42-5248
Meeting Set Up
Audio/Video
Regular Meetings
Special Meetings
8,400
2,400
3,000
10,800
Community Development
Planning/Engineering 01-160-999-42-5248
Mello Roos 01-160-999-42-5248
Parks & Recreation 01-190-999-42-5248
50,000
30,000
20,000
$183,800
Exhibit 3
City of Temecula
Miscellaneous Expenditures
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Rent - office
Rent - meeting hall
01-199-999-42-5234
Monthly rent inclu. CAM & janitor.
Number of months
01-100-999-42-5234
$4,400
6
26,400
1,200
27,600
Utilities
01-199-999-42-5240
Monthly estimate
Number of months
400
6
2,400
Telephone
01-199-999-42-5208
Monthly estimate
Number of months
1,000
6
6,000
Supplies:
City Manager
01-110-999-42-5208
Estimate per position
Number of positions
1,500
7
10,500
City Clerk
01-120-999-42-5208
Estimate per position
Number of positions
1,500
3
4,500
Exhibit 3
City of Temecula
Miscellaneous Expenditures
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Finance
01-140-999-42-5208
Estimate per position
Number of positions
1,500
4
6,000
Community Development
01-140-999-42-5208
Estimate per position
Number of positions
1,500
8
12,000
Management Information
01-140-999-42-5208
Estimate per position
Number of positions
1,500
1
1,500
34,500
Total
Exhibit 4
City of Temecula
Computer Hardware and Software
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
City Manager
Computer Systems
Tape Backup
Network Comm Cards
Menu Software
Wordprocessing Software
Laser Printer
Account Number
01-110-999-44-5604
01-110-999-44-5604
01-110-999-44-5604
01-110-999-44-5606
01-110-999-44-5606
01-110-999-44-5604
Estimated Extended
Cost/Unit Cost
3 $2,500 $7,500
3 400 1,200
1 200 200
2 50 100
2 250 500
1 2,000 2,000
11,500
Sales tax 7%
8O5
Total 12,305
city Clerk
Computer Systems
Tape Backup
Netwk Hi-impact Printer
Laser Printer
Network Comm Cards
Menu Software
Wordprocessing Software
Data Base Software
01-120-999-44-5604
01-120-999-44-5604
01-120-999-44-5604
01-120-999-44-5604
01-120-999-44-5604
01-120-999-44-5606
01-120-999-44-5606
01-120-999-44-5606
3 2,500 7,500
3 400 1,200
1 2,000 2,000
2 2,000 4,000
1 200 200
2 50 100
2 25O 5O0
1 500 500
16,000
Sales tax 7%
1,120
Total 17,120
Exhibit 4
City of Temecula
Computer Hardware and Software
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Account Number
Finance
Computer Systems 01-140-999-44-5604
Diskless Workstations 01-140-999-44-5604
Tape Backup 01-140-999-44-5604
Network Hi-impact Printer01-140-999-44-5604
Network Comm Cards
Laser Printer
Finance Software
Menu Software
Wordprocessing Software
Spreadsheet Software
01-140-999-44-5604
01-140-999-44-5604
01-140-999-44-5606
01-140-999-44-5606
01-140-999-44-5606
01-140-999-44-5606
Estimated Extended
Cost/Unit Cost
1 2,500 2,500
2 700 1,400
1 400 400
1 2,000 2,000
1 200 200
1 2,000 2,000
1 7,000 7,000
2 50 100
2 250 500
1 500 500
16,600
Sales tax 7%
1,162
Total 17,762
Community Development
Computer Systems
Tape Backup
Laser Printer
Network Comm Cards
Menu Software
Wordprocessing Software
Data Base Software
Spreadsheet Software
01-160-999-44-5604
01-160-999-44-5604
01-160-999-44-5604
01-160-999-44-5604
01-160-999-44-5606
01-160-999-44-5606
01-160-999-44-5606
01-160-999-44-5606
1 2,500 2,500
1 400 400
1 2,000 2,000
1 200 200
1 50 50
1 250 250
1 500 500
1 500 500
6,400
Sales tax 7%
448
Total 6,848
Exhibit 4
City of Temecula
Computer Hardware and Software
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Account Number
Information Systems
Computer Systems 01-180-999-44-5604
File Server 01-180-999-44-5604
Uninterrupt. Power Supply01-180-999-44-5604
Server Tape Backup
Network Corm Cards
Modems
Station Tape Backup
Laser Printer
Network Software
Spreadsheet Software
Menu Software
Wordprocessing Software
Utility Software
Data Base Software
Supplies
01-180-999-44-5604
01-180-999-44-5604
01-180-999-44-5604
01-180-999-44-5604
01-180-999-44-5604
01-180-999-44-5606
01-180-999-44-5606
01-180-999-44-5606
01-180-999-44-5606
01-180-999-44-5606
01-180-999-44-5606
01-180-999-44-5604
Estimated Extended
Cost/Unit Cost
i 2,500 2,500
i 7,500 7,500
i 1,500 1,500
I 1,500 1,500
1 200 200
2 200 400
1 400 400
1 2,000 2,000
i 5,000 5,000
1 500 500
2 50 100
2 250 500
2 50 100
1 500 500
1 1,500 1,500
24,200
Sales tax 7%
1,694
Total 25,894
Grand Total $79,929
Exhibit 5
City of Temecula
Office Equipment
For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990
Account Number
City Manager
Typewriters 01-110-999-44-5602
City Clerk
Typewriters 01-120-999-44-5602
Finance
Cash register 01-140-999-44-5602
Typewriters 01-140-999-44-5602
Community Development
Typewriters 01-160-999-44-5602
Non-departmental
Copier 01-199-999-44-5602
Postage meter 01-110-999-44-5602
3
2
Estimated Extended
Cost/Unit Cost
$500 $1,500
500 1,000
1 1,000 1,000
1 500 500
1 500 500
1 45,000 45,000
1 10,000 10,000
$59,500
RESOLUTION NO. 9O
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR
THE 1989-90 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, The City Manager presented to the City Council on March
13, 1990 a Proposed Budget for the 1989-90 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the City Council have recommended certain
changes be made to the Proposed Budget to reflect additional information, revised
estimates and modifications in priorities.
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and
order as follows:
Section 1.
The 1989-90 Budget for the City of Temecula is
hereby adopted.
Section 2.
Appropriations are hereby authorized and revenue
estimates confirmed in accordance with the Proposed
Budget dated March 13, 1990.
Section 3.
Regular full-time staff positions are hereby authorized
in accordance with Exhibit 1 to this Resolution.
Section 4.
Department heads are hereby authorized to
overexpend individual budget accounts in a budgetary
department, provided that the total appropriations for
a budget category (personnel costs, operating costs and
capital outlay) within a budgetary department are not
exceeded.
Section 5.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer
operating budget appropriations between budget
categories within a budgetary department or between
budgetary departments, provided that total
appropriations for a program area (general
government, public safety, community development,
public works, parks and recreation) are not changed.
Resos/90-26
03/07/90 3:14p~
City of Temecula
Resolution 90-
Page 2.
Section 6.
Changes to total program area appropriations and
changes to the number of authorized regular positions,
transfers to and/or from appropriated reserves,
cancellation of appropriations and appropriations of
fund balance shall require the majority approval of the
City Council.
Section 7.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March, 1990.
ATrEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos/90-26
03/07/90 3:14pm
DATE~'Harch 19, 1990
?St City Council and Olty Mana9er~Lj
FROM~ Bl~ Ho~ey, Staff ~ons~l~ant
SUBS: Sam Hicks Monument Park: Improvement Project Proposal
Staff recommends to City Council the fo/lowing:
1, City Council approve the submission of the attached
application to the County of R~verstde requesting Community
Development Bloch Orant Funds for the proposed improvements
to Sam Hicks Monument Park, those improvements consisting of
installation of roadway, ~alk~ay, drainage, lighting and
par~ing lmprovemsnts~ and,
2, Authorize the City Manager to sign the application on
behalf of the City.
As this is the first contact the City of Temecula has had
with the Community Development Block ~rant program, commonly
referred to as ODBG, a general overview of the program may be
helpful. The stated purpose of ~he CDBO program, is to provide
Federal funds through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), to assist local 9overnments undertake projects
that qualify in one of three areas: 1) Provides a benefit to low
and moderate Income persons: 2) Prevention or elimination of
slums and blight; or, 3) Addresses a documented health or safety
condition of particular urgency.
Riverside County receives a per capita allocation of Federal
ODB~ funds each year. These funds are disbursed in t~o ways.
First, cities which had popu3at~ons of 50,000 or over An the last
federal ten year census (1960), are c3a~sed ae "entitlement
cities" and receive their per capita a33ocattons directly from
the federal government with no County involvement. Second, the
balance 'of the per capita funds go to the County government and
are apportioned, again on a per capita basis, to each of the f~ve
supervtsorial districts. Allocation of the funds within each
district are not on a per capita basis, but are at the subjective
discretion of the District Supervisor, based on the perceived
merits of the submitted requests, Requests for funding may be
submitted by private individuals, organizations, or public
agencies for project of public benefit under the previously
stated criteria.
Cities with population under 50,000 )nay, however, enter into
three year "cooperative agreements" ~tth the Oounty where they
are given a per capita allocation of th~ in.omtng fundm and are
Page 2 of 2
no longer in 'open comp~titio;~~ with the rest of the district
for their share of CDBO dollars. As a cooperating city, it
becomes the City Council, rather than the District Supervisor,
that determines the project~ that are to be funded. The City of
Temecula will be approached about become a cooperating city,
through agreement, in September or October of this wear. for
three year period beginning in Fiscal '91-'92.
This year Supervisor Abraham's distract will receive
approximately $4OO,O00 An CDB~ fund~. ~here are many requests
being submitted for funding, including, if approved by Council,
Sam Hicks Monument Park.
SAM HXOKS MOHUMSHT PARK
In '89-'90. a two-year project was conceived and initiated
to design and "improve traffic circulation, safety and usage of
Sam Hicks Perk.''~ The first wear, and eolelw through CDB~
funding, the engineering ~as to be engaged. This has bee~ done.
It was originally envisioned that tn the second year of the
project, upcoming ~Iecal '90-9;, construction o~ the designed
improvements, no~ estimated at $~20,000, would occur with CDBO
contributing $60,000 of the co~t and the County Road Department
paying the project balance, currentlW estimated $60,000.
However, with the incorporation of the City of Temecula. the
responsibility for funding project balances An FAecal '90-9~
shifts from the County agencies to the City.
Through discusstot~ with fha County's CDB~ program
coordinator, James R. Tebbetts. staff has provided a proposed
method to immediately fund the project balance without dAvertin~
money from the City's current ~und balance. Through ~hAs proposed
me~hod~ ~he County ~ou~d advance the 'Sam H~o~s' project balance
An~o Fiscal '90-'91 from o~her County CDBG proJec~ no~ requ~ring
funding An '90-'9~. The City ~ouid reimburse the ooun~, ~Ath no
An~eres~, ~he advanced proJec~ balance ~rom CDB~ ~unds coming to
~he CAt~ An '91-'92, ~hoee funds estimated ~o be ~0.O00+/-.
In summary, Council approval of this application will:
1) Complete tho proposed improvements at Sam Hicks Monument
Park tn Fiscal '90-'91;
2) Require no commitment of GAry funds In Fiscal ,90-,91;
3) Require the City to reimburse the County approximately
860,000 An ~iscal '91-'92 from future City CDB9 allocations
or other sources as the City shall elect.
Project Proposal,
PROPOSAL NUMBER
Date Received
ENTITLEMENT FUNDS PROJECT PROPOSAL
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG)
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Name or Primary Activity Sponsor:
Address: P.O. Box 488
Temecula, ~A
Telephone Number: (714) 694-198g
Contact Person: Frank Aleshire
Address (If different from above):
City of Temecula
Zip Code: 92390
(714) 694-1999 (Fax)
Title:.City Manaaer
II
Ae
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (check applicable category)
~Real Property Acquisition
Public Service
Housing
~Capital Equipment
Rehabilitation/Preservation
(please provide picture of structure)
~Planning/Studies
X
Publ i c Faci 1 i ti es Improvements
(construction)
Other: explain
Name or Pro~ect: Sam Hick~ Park Imorovement~
Location of Pro~ect: .Coroner of Moreno Rd. ~ Mercedes St.
Provide a detailed description of the proposed project
describing precisely what is to be accomplished with
requested funds.
1. Provide a detailed description in quantifiable terms:
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
Thi~ is a multi-part Dro~ect tO improve traffic circula-
tion. safety and usage of Sam HtCk~ Park.
l) Installation of 800' + of curb~, gutters. ~idewalks,
match uD asphalt and street lights along Moreno Road
and Mercedes Street.
2) Construction of a parking lot to serve the park, Fire
Station and Museum.
3) Provide and access way from the street to the parks
playground equipment.
This is a continuation of pro~ect #1.038 (198g-go).
by
the
-2-
Explain hov the project appropriately addresses the
Identified needs of the area to be served. Identtfy the
needs; and explain boy these needs vere Identified (ie
study, survey, etc.)(attach additional sheets tf necessary)
The Dro~ect will increase traffic circulation on Horeno
Road and Mercedes Street: Provide increased accessibility
for fire eoui0ment res0ondtng to reouests bv ~erson~ in
need' Increase access and use ability of the ~arK; Eli-
minate drainage and hydrology problems around the park;
Permit construction of a museum at the site. ~ommunitY
meetings and one on one contact with principals determined
what the Droblems and or ~otential solutions.
Identify the census tracts served by the proposed project.
(If countywide benefit, so indicate) (Attach additional
sheets if necessary)
CT 432 ED 713
-3-
e
If thts ts a public servtce actlvtty:
(A) Is thts a new servtce provtded by your agency? Yes
No X (B) If servtce is not new, will the proposed
activity substantially increase the existtng level of
servtce? Explatn how the service will be substantially
Increased. (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Discuss the project's effect on low and moderate income
res i dents, t dent1 fi ab1 e groups and neighborhood s,
highlighting the expected benefits to the residents:
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
Primary effect would be the increased accessibility and
usability of the oark by residents of "old town" Temecula.
Because oarking is restricted around the oark now, use of
the oark is limited, in addition, without lighting night
time use is restricted.
-4-
III
6. Attach maps of proposed project's locatton and service area.
PROJECT BENEFIT:
To be eligible for CDBG funding, a project must qualify
within one of the three following categories. Indicate how
the activity meets the following categories of benefits.
Indicate the source of the information provided.
CATEGORY 1. PRIMARY BENEFIT TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
PERSONS.
Number of all persons to be served by this project 458 (1980)
2,000 (198g
Number and percent of low and moderate income households to
be served by this project ............... # 174 ~ 02.9
(Low and moderate income households less than $14,550 annual
income).
Source U.S. Census
Median Household Income of area to be served: ...... $10.000
Number and percentage of elderly (60 yrs. +) to be served by
this project: .................................... # 61
................................................. ~ 14
Source U.S. Census
Number and percentage of minorities to be served by this
project: ......................................... # 40
Source U.S. Census
CATEGORY 2. PREVENTION OF ELIMINATION OF SLUMS AND BLIGHT:
Provide Documentation: On file at the RDA Office
Is the project located in a Redevelopment Area: Yes
Source: Riverside County Redevelopment Agency
CATEGORY 3. DOCUMENTED HEALTH OR SAFETY CONDITION OF
PARTICULAR URGENCY:
Provide Documentation:
Source:
-5-
IV FINANCIAL INFORMATION:
A. Complete the following annual budget to begin on July 1, of
this year. If multi-year funding is requested, attach a
budget for each additional year. If these line items are
not applicable to your activity, please attach an
appropriate budget.
BUDGET
CDBG FUNDS *OTHER FUNDS TOTAL
$ $ $
P1 anni ng/Studi es
Architectural Engineering Design $
$ $
Real Property Acquisition $. $ $
Construction/Rehabilitation $ 60.000 $ 40.000 $100.000
Capital Equipment $ $ $.
Administration $ $ lO.O00 $ lO.O00
Identify:
(Salaries, Fringes, )
(Operating Expense,
Contingency $ $ lO.O00 $ lO,O00
Other $ $ $
Specify:
Total Costs
$ 60.000 $ 60.000 $120.000
TOTAL CDBG FUNDS REQUESTED $ 60,000
*B. Identify other funding sources; identify commitments or
applications for funds from other sources to implement this
activity. Attach evidence of commitment.
Type of
Funding Source Amount of Funds Available Date Available Commitment
City of Temecula requests a $60,000 advance on its 17th Year allocation
(19g1-92). The City will reimburse Supervisor Abraham out of this
allocation. Should these funds be unavailable, the City is committed to
paying the Supervisor out of other City funds.
-6-
Ce
Yes
D.
If this project benefits citizens of more than one community
or local jurisdictions have requests been made to those other
Jurisdictions:
No X If yes, identify sources and indicate outcome
Has this project previously funded with CDBG funds? If yes,
when. Is this activity a continuation of a previously funded
(CDBG) project? (Explain)
Engineerinq activities conducted in 19B9/90 Fiscal Year.
V
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION:
Ae
Describe the organization responsible for managing and
operating the project, discuss previous similar experience,
list sources, and commitment of funds for operation and
maintenance. If non-profit corporation, please provide a
list of your Board of Directors, as well as your Articles of
Incorporation and By-Laws.
(Provide Management Information as an attachment). By name,
identify project manager, or person in charge of the
project's day to day operations.
B. Timetable for Project Implementation.
Indicate primary project milestones: (You may attach on
separate sheet)
MILESTONE
START DATE
COMPLETION DATE
Complete Bid Documents 09/90
11/90
Bidding Process
12/90 02/91
Begin Construction
03/gl
Complete Construction
06/91
C. If you have never received CDBG funding from Riverside
County, provide evidence of any previous experience with
other Federally funded programs.
Amount Funds Funds
Source Activity Year Received Expended
-7-
VI CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:
VII
Every pro~ect proposal must contain evidence of citizen
participation and support for the proposal. That evidence must
include documentation of at least one community meeting thi~ year
at which the specific pro~ect was discussed and opportunity given
for citizen input. Indicate below the methods used to obtain
citizen involvement and attach a~rooriate documentation.
Minutes of Meeting:
Attendance Reports:
Press Release:
Advertisement:
Flyers:
Petitions:
Endorsement Letters:
Community Citizen
Participation Meeting
X Other:
PLANNING:
A. Identify the most applicable adopted plans or
which the proposed pro~ect will help implement:
Riverside County General Plan - Fire Master Plan
strategi es
Riverside Countv General Plan - Circulation Element
CSA 143 Master Plan
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned hereby certifies that:
The information contained in the project proposal is complete and
accurate.
e
The sponsor shall comply with all Federal and County policies and
requirements affecting the CDBG program.
The federal assistance made available through the CDBG program
funding is not being utilized to substantially reduce the prior
levels of local financial support for community development
activities.
4. The sponsor shall maintain and operate the facility for its
approved use throughout its economic life.
Sufficient funds are available to complete the project as
described, if CDBG funds are approved.
Frank Aleshire, City Manager
Type Name and Title of Authorized Representative
Signature of Authorized Representative
JRT:gl~
(04B2U)
-- 8 --
Date
CITY OF TEbff. L'UIA
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
WI'G: 03-13-90
DEI:~': ~
TITLE:
MELLO ROOS RESOLUTION OF
INTENTION
DEPT HD.
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR
BACKGROUND
At the City Coundl Meeting of March 8, 1990, the Council unanimously agreed to proceed with
the Mello Roos Community Facilities District 88-12 under the following concepts:
Ynez to be six lanes
The City not to pay for developer-required improvements
Sales taxes to be used to pay the City fair share of costs
Since that time, negotiations have been held with the landowners, City Manager and City
Attorney. The City Attorney and attorneys for the landowners have prepared a Resolution of
Intention for Council action. This Resolution spells out the general term.g and conditions under
which the City will participate in the District. This is not the final document. It is a set of
standards and policies. Much more effort will be required by the County and others to work
out the final details, but this Resolution provides sufficient guidance of City intention to allow
the election of the property owners to proceed on March 23rd.
BASIC FEATURES
The City is agreeing to contribute funds (sales tax) to cover the cost of defined "regional
improvements" wit_bin the Ynez Corridor. Landowners are required to pay the annual bond
retirement costs up front, to pay their individual "local developer costs," and to pay any traffic
mitigation fees imposed by the City in the future.
"Local Developer Costs" are defined to be: four lanes plus curb/sidewalk and utility costs on
Ynez Road. This works out to something like 1/3-2/3 split on the total cost of Ynez.
"Regional Improvements" are defined as: Ynez Road (1/3), two on-loops on 1-15, and the
Apricot over-crossing. Work includes right-of-way acquisition and utilities. In addition, the $2
million Park acquisition and improvement cost is included as regional.
Included in the City's share of cost is the cost of improvements already built, which must be
acquired or rebuilt to new standards. The work along Ynez and Solana Way at the Auto
Center are in this category. The County promi~d to reimburse the Auto Center for the work
done for streets, utilities and storm drain. The exact reimbursement is not yet computed by the
County, but we have determined that there is a clear obligation to reimburse for those costs.
It has also been determined that it is not possible to acquire a full 134 feet of right-of-way for
all of Ynez. For vacant property, 134 feet will be the standard. For already improved land, a
lesser right-of-way will have to soffice. In all cases, however, there will be six travel lanes for
traffic. The parkway, parking lanes and median will be varied to fit within available
right-of-way. Properties affected by this restricted right-of-way include: Plaza Shopping Center,
Target Mall, and ACS.
l\Cadpt\031390.025 -1- 03/08/90 3:45Ftm
Current estimates of the cost of the entire project are $16-18 million. Exact costs will not be
known until the County hires engineers and negotiates right-of-way costs. The plan provides
that the landowners will first pay the annual bond costs of approximately $1_6 million per year.
The City will pay into the trust fund up to 25°~ of sales taxes received from within the District
each year. The sales tax money will first go to reimbursing developed properties, then to
undeveloped properties.
As developments occur, the developer will reimburse the City for the four lanes on Ynez and
pay traffic mitigation fees. These payments will replace sales taxes. Under this scheme, the
City will be reimbursed by future development for some or all of the sales taxes advanced. The
landowners will underwrite the bond costs by liens on their lands, but they will receive
reimbursement from sales tax payments. This plan seems fair to all concerned and complies
The benefits of this proposal are that critically-needed traffic improvements will be built without
further delay, ff this District is not approved, it is likely that further development in the Ynez
Corridor will be delayed until some other plan is devised to mitigate the traffic deficiencies.
1\ca,pt\031390.025 -2- 03/08/9o 3:451m
f/R~S14444r¥(O~0890-3)
RESOLUTION NO. 90-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING ITS INTENTION
TO ASSIST WITH THE FINANCING OF ROAD AND
TRAFFIC AND PARK FACILITIES OF REGIONAL
BEN~FIT WITHIN THE CITY BY MAKING CERTAIN
SALES TAX REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF DEBT SERVICE ON BONDS OF
COMHUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-12
(YN~Z CORRIDOR) OF THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE WHICH MAY BE ISSUED TO FINANCE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside (the #County#)
prior to incorporation, has conducted proceedings pursuant
to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as
amended, Chapter 2.5 (commencing with § 53311) of Division
of Title 5 of the Government Code (the "Mello-Roos Act"),
for the establishment of Community Facilities District No.
88-12 (¥nez Corridor) of the County of Riverside, State of
California (the "District"), the authorization of a bonded
indebtednes~ for the District in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $60,000,000, and the levy of special
taxes on parcels of taxable property therein to pay the
principal of and interest on bonds which may be issued to
represent such bonded indebtedness and to finance the design
and construction of certain public facilities; and
WHEREAS, all proceedings pursuant to the Mello-Roos
Act with respect to the establishment of the District, the
authorization of the bonded indebtednes~ therefor and the
levy of ~pecial taxes on taxable property therein to pay the
-1-
~/~ES14444=v(030890~3)
principal of and interest on the bonds thereof have been
completed except the elections pursuant to ~Qctions 53526
and 5335% of the Gowernment Code; and
WHEREAS, among the public facilit~et which are pro-
posed to be financed with the proceeds of the bonds of the
District are the construction and widening of Ynez Road to a
six (6) lane width from the north property line of the
property where the Advance Cardiovascular Systems building
is located southerly to its intersection w~th Rancho
California Road, the qonstruction of the Apricot Street
Overcrossing of Interstate Highway ~5, the addition of
ramps at the entrances of Rancho California Road and
Winchester Road to Interstate Highway 15, and the
acquisition of land for the future development of regional
and local parks, and the acquisition of Solano Way and
certain water, sewer, and storm drains improvements located
therein, all of which will be of general benefit to
residents throughout the City of Temecula ("City") and the
surrounding area and which facilities are not private
projects but those required by City and County (the "Public
Facilities"); and
WHEREAS, the territory within the District is
located entirely within the City add will be developed for
commercial and industrial uses which will provide signifi-
cant sales and use tax revenues to the City: and
-2-
~f/RE$~4444rv (030890-3)
WHEREAS, prior to incorporation, the Board of
Supervisors of the County, as an inducement to the owners of
the property within the boundaries of the District to
proceed with the financing of the construction of the
Regional Traffic Facilities and the development of their
property to provide such sales and use tax revenues agreed
with the owners of property within the District to annually
appropriate and make available for the payment of principal
of and interest on the bonds of the District a portion of
the sales and use tax,revenues received by the County from
businesses and industries located within the District; and
WHEREAS, now that the City has become incorporated,
the County will not receive any sales and use tax revenues
from businesses and industries located within the District,
and all such revenues will be received by the City; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the property within the
District have requested of the City that the City enter into
an agreement with them whereby the City will make sales and
use tax revenues received by the City from businesses and
industries located within the District available for the
payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds of the
District which may be issued and sold to finance the
construction and acquisition of the Public Facilities; and
WHEREAS, in order to induce such owners to proceed
with the elections to be conducted by the County authorizing
-3-
~ f/RESi4444tv (030890-3)
of the bonded indebtedness for the District and the levy of
special taxes on taxable property therein to pay the
principal of and interest on bonds which may be issued and
sold to represent such bonded indebtedness and to finance
the Public Facilities, it is desirable that the city enter
into such an agreement with the County and with owners of
the property within the District; and
WHEREAS, the City also requires certain agreements
from the County and the owners of property within the
District in order to ~ake such sales and use tax revenues
available for these Public Facilities while assuring that
fund~ will be available for otl~er road projects of benefit
to City residents; and
WHEREAS, since it is not possible for the City and
such owners to negotiate the final terms and conditions of
such an agreement and to have such an agreement approved,
authorized and executed on behalf of the city and all such
owners prior to the last date upon which such elections can
be held pursuant to Section 53326 of the Government Code, it
is neoessary and desirable that the City Council adopt a
resolution with regard to its intention to enter into such
an agreement and to make a portion of the sales and use tax
revenues received by the City from businesses and industries
located within the District available to the County for the
payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds of the
-4-
£/RES14444rv(030890-3)
District Which may be issued and sold to finance the Public
Facilities and specifying the general terms and cohdltions
of such an agreement; and
WHEREAS, the County has agreed to limit the amount
of bonds to be authorized in such elections and issued to
that necessary to fund the Public Facilities and expenses
incidental thereto (believed to be approximately $16,000,00o
plus Co,ts); and
WHEREAS, since additional road and traffic
facilities also are o~ benefit to property owners and
residents of the City, it is also equitable and desirable
that the City Council proceed with the establishment of an
impact fee program, including but not limited to, the
formation of a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction
Fee District(~) pursuant to Section 66484 of the Government
Code, including the property within the District, and levy a
fee aS a condition to tl~e issuance of building permits to
provide a source of revenue to finance the construction and
acqul~ition of, or to reimburse the District for such roads,
bridges and traffic facilities,throughout tb~Cit~; and
WHEREAS, the owners of property within the Distr,.c%
have agreed to pay ~uch fees upon issuance of building
permits and notwithstanding any prior agreement with the
County, to waive their rights to protest to the formation of
-5-
[~/R]~S14444tv (030890-3)
such an impact fee district or the levy and collection of a
fee therein; and
WHEREAS, as a portion of the Public Facilities to
be financed are of local rather than regional benefit, the
owners of property within the District also have agreed to
reimburse City for the cost of such Public Facilities they
otherwise would be required to build with their own funds;
and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the costs of
utility relocation for such public projects will be borne by
the affected utilities, but, in the event all or a portion
of such costs are not borne by the utilities, the City and
owners of property shall divide such costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETErmINED AND
ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AS
FOLLOWS:
~~_~. R_eci~als. The recitals set forth above
are true and correct.
~~g~. A__qreement by City. It is the intention
of the City Council to negotiate the terms and conditions of
and to approve and authorize the execution and delivery on
behalf of the city an agreement to be entered into between
the City and County and all owners of property within the
DistrAct which, with regard to sales and use tax revenues,
wall in general provide as follows:
-6-
,f L/RP.,S ~.4444r~, ( 030890-3 )
(a) When and if bonds of the District
are authori~e~ and issued by the County in an amount
sufficient to finance the Traffic Facilities (plus
incidental expenses), the City council will develop a system
to annually appropriate and make available for the payment
of the principal of and interest on such bonds an amount
equal to 25 percent of the sales and use tax revenues
received for that fiscal year by the City from b,lsi~esses
and ind~strieg located within the District
(b~ The City Council shall appropriate
such sales and use tax revenues each year for the term of
the bonds, commencing with the first fiscal year in which
special taxes are levied on parcels of taxable property in
the District for the payment of interest or principal on the
bonds.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
City Council has the absolute authority in any fiscal year
tO determine not to make such an appropriation and the
failure or refusal of the City to make such an appropriation
shall not be determined to be a breach of any agreement.
(d) No part of the sales and use tax
revenues received by the City in any fiscal year shall be
appropriated, made available or used for the payment of
principal of and interest on the bonds ef the District which
-7-
f/RES14444rv (030890-3)
are issued and sold to finance any public facill.~es other
than the Public Facilities .
(e) For each fiscal year when sales and
use ta~ revenues have been appropriated by the City Council,
such revenues shall be allocated for the payment of special
taxes as follows:
(1) Up to 25 percent of the sales
and use tax revenues received during each fiscal year
with respect to each parcel of developed property which
generates sales t~x revenue (a parcel with a commercial
or industrial business located thereon and with curb and
gutter adjacent thereto) shall be allocated to the
payment of the special tax levied on that parcel of
developed property for that fiscal year. To the extent
that the amount of the special tax exceeds the amount of
sales and use tax revenues available to pay the special
tax, the property owner si%all pa), the additional amount
of any special tax owing (the #sharefall#).
(2) In the event the amount of the
sales and use tax revenues available to be appropriated
in any fiscal year with respect to a parcel of developed
property is in excess of the special tax levied on that
property for that fiscal year that excess first shall be
allocated to pay or reduce all or a portion of the
-8-
~/RES ~4444 rv (03 0890-~ )
special taxes levied on parcels of developed property
which does not generate sales and use tax revenues or
%tlldeveloped property in the District, which special
taxes shall then be reduced pro rata. To the extent
that the amount of the special tax exceeds the amount of
sales and use tax available to pay the special tax, the
property owner shall pay such amount.
(3) It is contemplated that in the
later years of the agreement the 25 percent of
~ales tax revenues appropriated annually for the
payment of principal and interest on District bonds
may exceed the amount of the special tax levied on
parcels of both developed and undeveloped
property. In ti%e event of sucl% an excess in any
future years the City shall appropriate and make
available such excess first to reimburse each owner
pro rata of developed property for the shortfall
pursuant to subsection 1 hereof, and then to the
extent any excess remains to reimburse each owner
of undeveloped property or developed property pro
rata for special taxes paid pursuant to Paragraph
2. Such reimbursement st%all be made without
interest and shall be credited first to the
earliest fiscal year Jn which special taxes were
--9--
~f f/Rli',Sl~444rv
levied. In the event that there is no such exces~
in any fiscal year, the City shall be under no
obligation to make such reimbursement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council
shall have the absolute authority in any fiscal
year to determine whether or not %o make this
appropriation and has no obligation to make any
contribution or reimbursement from any other funds
of the City.
Traffic Im~Dact Feea.
Tile city Council
intend~ to initiate, conduct and complete proceedings to
form a district and levy and collect traffic impact fees, as
allowed by law, including, but not limited to those
authorized pursuant to Section 66484 of the Government Code,
to be paid by the owners of property within the area of
benefit as a condition to the issuance of building permits
to finance the design and construction (or reimbursement to
the District therefor) of roads, bridges and other traffic
facilities which are of benefit throughout the City (the
"Traffic Impact Fee"), Specifically including, but not
limited to, the cost of construction of the fifth and sixth
lanes of Ynez Road.
(a) Tile agreement referenced in Section
2 hereof shall provide that the owners of property within
-10-
~f/RES14444r~(030890-~}
the District, notwithstanding any prior agreement with the
County, mhall pay such a Traffic Impact Fee as determined by
the City upon the issuance of building permits.
(b) The owners of property also shall
agree to consent to the formation of a district for, and the
levy and collection of, a Traffic Impact Fee therein, and
shall waiYe their rights to protest such formation, levy or
collection, but not to object to the method of allocation of
costs or fee apportionment.
(c~ The City Council may but in no
manner is req]/ired to elect in any fiscal year, and the
agreement provided for in Section 2 hereof shall so provide,
to pay all or any portion of the special taxes levied on
parcels of taxable property in the District for the payment
of the principal of and interest on the bonds thereof, which
would otherwi;e be paid with sales and use tax revenues
appropriated by the City Council, with revenues of the
Traffic Impact Fees or other available funds, but the
general revenues or full faith and credit of the City shall
not be pledged for such payment.
~=g.~~. Facilities.So be ~lnan;.~d. The
agreement provided for in Section 2 hereof shall provide
that the facilities wl3ich shal3 be financed with the first
series of bonds to be issued by the County for the District
shall include only the following facilities to be known as
-11-
£/R~14444r~,(030890-3)
the #Traffic Facilities,# and any and all costs incidenta!
thereto.
(a) Construction of the Apricot Street
0vercrossing of Interstate Highway 15 from Ynez Road to
Jefferson Avehue, including the acquiuition of the right-of-
way required on both sides of Interstate Highway 15, at an
estimated cost of $5,000,000;
(b) The construction of Ynez Road to a
six (6) lane width with turning pockets at various
intersections, commenc{mg from the morth property line of the
property upon which the Advanue Cardiovasculur System plant
is located southerly to its intersection with Rancho
California Road, includi~g the acquisition of right-of-way,
utility relocations, and utility crossings (i.~., storm
sewers, sanitary sewers, water maln~, uas main~, electrlcal
facilities, traffic s~.~na! ~acillties relocation, telephone
and Cable television facilities, etc.), at a~ estimated cost
of $3,000,000;
(c) The construction of the freeway
loop-ramp at the southeast quadrant of the entrance of
Rancho California Road to Interstate Highway 15, including
the &cguis~tion of the required right-of-way, at an
estimated cost of $1,000,000;
(d) The construction of the freeway
loop-ramp at the southeast quadran% of the entrance of
i£/RES14444rv (030890-3)
Winchester Road to Interstate Highway 15, including the
acquisition of the required rigllt-of-way, at an estimated
cost of $1,000,000;
(e) The acquisition of park land and/or
the construction of facilities, buildings, and equipment for
local and regional park and recreational purposes, at an
estimated cost of $2,000,000; and
(f) The acquisition of street
improvements, watgr and ~wer..sys.tem..faci~it%.es .~nd ~torm
drainage fa~ilitSDs i9 Solano Way near its intersection with
Ynez Road thereof, including the acquisition of right-of-way
therefor, which have been constructed to support the auto
park located at such intersection and the acquisition of
which is provided for in the resolution of intention and the
resolution of formation adopted by the Board of Supervisors
of the County with respect to the District, at an estimated
cost of $2,000,000.
Section 4. F__i.~st ~eries o~ Bonds. with respect
to the bonds of the Distr~ct to be issued and sold by the
county, the agreement provided for in Section 2 hereof mhall
provide as follows:
(a) The first series of the bonds shall
be issued and sold as soon as possible (i.9., summer or
early fall of 1990) in the aggregate principal amount of
approximately $16,000,000 only to finance the design and
-13-
//RES14444rV(030890-3)
construction and acquisition of the Public Facilities
described in Section 4 hereof and any and all costs
incidental thereto; .~
(b) The aggregate principal amount of
the first series of the bonds shall include a reserve fund
in such amount as is reasonably required, issuance costs,
underwriter's discount, and capitalized interest for not
more than 18 months as well as the costs o£ administration
of the District and of the agreement contemplated by this
Resolution;
(c) The aggregate principal amount of
the first series of tile bonds st~all also include an amount
sufficient to reimburse the owners of property within the
District any amounts which they have advanced to the County
for the payment of costs and expenses incurred by the County
in connection with the establishment of the District and the
issuance and sale of the bonds;
(d) The aggregate principal amount of
the first series of the bonds to be issued and sold shall be
determined by the County in consultation with its bond
counsel and financial consultant, the underwriter, the
owners of property within the District and the City; and
e) The first series of the bonds to be
issued and sold shall contain a provision which will permit
their call and redemption at the earliest practical date, a~
f/R~S14444rv(O30890-3)
determined.by the County in consultation with its bond
counsel and financial consultant and the underwriter.
~~k_~. Condition Precedent.
(a) The City shal. 1 not be obligated to
enter into an agreement with the County alld the owners of
property within the District as contemplated in this
Resolution, unless two-thirds of the votes cast in the
elections within and for the District on the proposition of
the District incurring a bonded indebtedness and the
proposition of the leyy of special taxes on parcels of
taxable property therein to pay the principal of and
interest on the bonds of the District which may be issued
and sold to represent such bonded indebtedness and to
finance the design and coDstruction of the Traffic
Facilities are in favor of such propositions, and the County
is thereby authorized to provide for the issuance and sale
of the bonds of the District in an amount sufficient to
finance the design and construction of the Traffic
Facilities and to levy special taxes on all parcels of
taxable property within the District in an aggregate amount
sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such
bonds of the District.
· ~g_~/L_~. A__qre___em___ent and Cooperation ,.of
W~. In addition to the agr{~ements set out in § 3(a) and
(b) hereof:
f f/RIsS 14444 rv ( 030890-3 )
(a) The agreement contemplated by this
Resolution shall further provide that the owners of property
in the District agree that they will execute and deposit
w~th City, aS an attachment to the Agreement contemplated by
this ReBolution, an irrevocable offer to dedicate the land
necessary to widen Ynez Road as set out in §4 hereof;
(b) The owners of property further agreQ
that the issuance of building permits for their projects
with frontage on Ynez Road shall be conditioned on repayment
to City of the costs of construction of the first through
fourth lanes of ¥nez Road, such repayment to be calculated
pursuant to a formula to be developed by City to be based on
the frontage on Ynez Road, and such costs to include 2/3 of
the cost of any utility relocation not borne by the utility:
and that a contingent assessment for such costs may be
placed on their property; or
(c) That tile property owners within the
District will support the establishment of a larger regional
community facilities district by the City and the issuance
and sale of bonds thereof to finance the design and
construction of regional roads, bridges and traffic
facilities subject to their right to object to the rate and
method for levy of the special tax, which are necessary to
solve regional traffic problems tt~roughout the City, and
that to the extent allowed by law bonds of the regional
-16-
~/RES~¢44~zw(030890-3)
community facilities district may be issued and sold to
refth~d and redeem the first series of the bonds issued and
sold.by the County for the District.
~9~P_[k_~. Property Acugisitioh The agreement
contemplated by this Resolution shall provide that to the
extent property for the Traffic Facilities has not been
required to be dedicated by and therefore must be acquired
from the owners of property within the District, the date of
valuation for such property shall be the date of adoption of
this Resolution.
~Lq~l~. Nothing herein shall be construed to
limit the City's ability to enter into separate, additional
agreements with County or one or more owners of property
within the District consistent with the Resolution or
agreement contemplated thereby. City contemplates that it
will enter into an agreement with Bedford Properties, Inc.
to grant Bedford credit against Traffic Impact Fees levied
on property within the District bisected by Ynez Road and in
the amount of Bedford's costs of construction of Ynez Road
north of Apricot for the fift}] and sixth lanes.
adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
..... , 1990.
The City Clerk shall certify the
day of
RON'
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the C~ty Council of the City of Temeoula at
a regular meetAng thereof, held on the ~ day
of ...... , 1990 by the following vote of the
Council":'
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TEMECUIA
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
AB#:
DEPT:
03-13-90
CM
TITLE:
CLUB VA!F. NCIA APARTMENTS
DEPTHD.
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR~
At the Council meeting January 23, 1990 a petition was filed requesting the Council to hold
hearings to disapprove additional apartments in the Moraga-Rancho California area.
The situation is thi.~:
On May 10, 1988 the County approved a Vesting Tentative Map for a one lot, 344-unit
condo/apartment project called Club Valencia. The development plan was approved as Exhibit
"A." No plot plan approval is required.
The project was sold to IDM Corporation recently and grading permits were pulled. The
21-acre site is now bein~o graded and building permits will be applied for.
The owner has filed the Final Map with the County and indicates that all conditions of
Tentative Map have been met.
The City Council will soon be asked to approve the Final Map.
In accordance with the City Attorney memo of March 2, 1990 it appears the City Council has
no discretion since the Tentative Map was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 10,
1988.
Mr. William Coghlen, IDM Development representative, (213) 498-0141, will be at the March
13th Council Meeting to answer questions.
Others familiar with the project are:
Richard Machott, County of Riverside Planning (714) 275-3299.
Nancy at Rick Engineering (714) 782-0707.
Ronni Crossland, representative of petitioners, has been notified and may wish to address the
Encl:
Petition
City Attorney memo March 2, 1990.
l\CmRpt\O]l~O.O~ -1- ;id ss ·
PETITION
REGARDING: HEARING AND DISAPPROVAL OF
RANCHO VALENCIA APARTMENTS
WHEREAS, there is currently undeveloped land on the north side of Rancho California
Road, east of Moraga Road between Woodcreek Apartments and "The Villages" and
WHEREAS, there is evidence that said land is intended for more apartments; and
WHEREAS, this project falls within a one square mile area which houses three
apartment complexes totaling 784 units namely Woodcreek Apartments at 42200
Moraga Road, Morning Ridge Apartments ~t 30660 Milky Way Drive and Margarita
Summit Apartments at 42200 Margarita Road; and
WHEREAS, the current plans for this project, Rancho Valencia Apartments, an
IDH Development, are to build 344 units bringing the total number of apartment
units to 1,128; and
WHEREAS, additional apartments would negatively impact an already existing traffic
problem; and
WHEREAS, we believe that apartments often attract transients and crime including
drug related activities; and
WHEREAS, we believe that there already exists more than enough high density
residences;
THEREFORE, the undersigned citizens of Temecula, residing within one mile of the
proposed apartment complex request that the City Counsel hold immediate hearings
on this project and DISAPPROVE additional apartments at that location.
Signature
Print Name Address
P~~(:~,N am e Address
~rint Name
Print Name
Address
Address
Address
Address
Signature
Print Name
Address
Signature
gnature
Print Name
Print Name
Address
Address
Signature Print Name Address
March 2, 1990
ON[ WILl:HIRE OUILOING
~4 ~.0UTH GR&hICI &~:NU~E. IITM IrLoc,~
v,O$ &NG£LrG, C&LIrORNi&
(z,]) ~3e,oeoo
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the City Council
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAPS
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
The purpose of this letter is to explain the City
Council's authority in the approval of final tract maps.
As a matter of background, the first step necessary
in order to subdivide property is for the owner to file a
tentative map application. Depending on local procedure,
the tentative map is approved by either the Planning
Commission or the city Council, subject to conditions
setting forth the requirements to which the owner must
conform in developing the property. These conditions may
address such matters as street, bicycle path and transit
facility dedications, solar access easements, parkland
dedication, school dedication, drainage and sewer
facilities, fees for bridges and major thoroughfares, fees
for ground-water recharge, and various other public and off-
site improvements.
The next step after approval of the tentative map
is approval of the final map. Approval of the final map
creates the legal lots of the subdivision. Prior to the
approval of a final map, all tentative map conditions must
be complied with, either through constructing the
improvements, or entering into an improvement agreement with
the City.
The City ~lust approve the final map if the
subdivider has substantially complied with the terms and
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the City Council
March 2, 1990
Page 2
conditions attached to the tentative map approval. The City
Engineer or County Surveyor determines whether there is
substantial compliance with the tentative map by executing a
certificate stating: that the subdivision is substantially
the same as it appeared on the tentative map, that all
Subdivision Map Act provisions and local ordinances
applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map have
been complied with, and that the map is technically
correct. Once the Engineer or Surveyor executes the final
map certificate, formal approval of the final map is a
ministerial act, and the City Council has no discretion to
disapprove the final map in the absence of fraud. In one
court case, the Court stated that the City Council is not to
make the technical determination on whether the requirements
and conditions of the tentative map have been satisfied, and
that the submission of the final map does not authorize the
City Council to redetermine matters that are primarily
technical in nature. Rather, the purpose of submitting the
final map to the City Council is to ensure that the Council
and the public remain informed about development in the
City's jurisdiction. (Great W~sterD Savings & Loan
Association v. city of Los Angeles (1973) 31Cal.App.3d 403,
These same rules generally apply in the case of
newly incorporated cities. The recently adopted statute
appearing at Government Code § 66413.5 applies to any new
city with an effective incorporation date on or after
January 1, 1989. In such new cities, final maps that meet
the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the County
Subdivision Ordinance, and that substantially comply with
the applicable tentative map must be approved by the
Council. However, a newly incorporated city may condition
or deny final map approval when a failure to do so would
create a "dangerous health and safety" condition, or when
the condition or denial is required to comply with State or
Federal law. It should be noted that a dangerous health and
safety condition is a very narrow exception and the Council
would need to make a specific finding as to the danger that
would result in approval of the final map.
Finally, it should be noted that Section 66413.5
applies only if the developer's tentative map application
was submitted to the County before the first signature was
Honorable Mayor and ~embers of
the City Council
March 2, 1990
Page 3
placed on the zncorporation petlt~on, and the County
approved the tentatiYe map before the incorporation
election. In the case of Temecula, the incorporation
election was November 7, 1989. We are still determining the
date of the first signature on the incorporation petition,
but we believe it was in the Spring of 1988.
Please feel free to call me should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
CITY OF TEMECULA
$£f/LTR15002: bj j
cc: F. D. Aleshire, City Manager
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN
DIRECTOR
(819) 694-2212
(LOCATION CODE 750)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
5555 OVERLAND AVE. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123-1295
COUNTY ENGINEER
COUNTY AIRPORTS
COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
LIQUID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS: NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL DRAFT EIR/EIS
The County of San Diego invites you to attend a public meeting to discuss
the environmental impacts of opening a new landfill in northern San Diego
County as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/EIS). The new landfill will
accommodate municipal solid wastes generated by residents and business
throughout the county. Three possible sites were identified by an extensive
site review study conducted last year: the Blue Canyon s~te, located about
seven miles northwest of the community of Warner Springs; the Aspen Road
site, located east of the Santa Margarita River, about four miles northeast
of the commun{ty of Fallbrook; and the Gregory Canyon site, located south
of the San Luis Rey River about three miles east of Interstate 15, and two
and one-half miles southwest of the community of Pala. In view of the
difficulty in,identifying feasible Class III landfill sites in North
County, the County's proposed action and the Bureau of Land Management's
preferred alternative is to purchase and operate all three alternative
sites as future North County landfills.
The County of San Diego has prepared an environmental document that
addresses the possible environmental impacts at each alternative landfill
site. The document has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Because the new landfill may be located on federal land
or may require federal permits, the Bureau of Land Management has joined
the County of San Diego in preparation of the environmental document.
Your comments on the environmental concerns that should be addressed in
evaluating the opening of a new North County landfill are important. You
are invited to attend any of the following meetings:
Potter Junior High School Bowers Auditoriu~
1743 Reche Rd., Fallbrook
Xarch 12, 1990
7:00 p.a.
Pauma Valley Community Center
Highway 76, Pauma Valley
March 14, 1990
7:00 p.m.
UniOn Elementary School Multipurpose Area
Highway 79, Warner Springs
March 15, 1990
7:00 p.m.
The purpose of these meetings is to summarize the information contained in
the DEIR/EIS, explain the environmental review process, and most
importantly, receive comments from the public regarding the environmental
issues. If you have any questions or need more information, call Trish
Butler at The Butler Roach Group, 298-7127, or Kathy Lehtola at the County
of San Diego, 694-2177.
Priat~l on R~cled Paper
AMENDED LEGAL NOTICE/
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AVAILABILITY
OF DRAFT EIR/EIS FOR.THE PROPOSED
NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL
(SCH# 89-071908)
(This notice, orginally published on January 25, 1990, has been
amended to change the end of the public review period from March
25, 1990 to March 26, 1990)
The County of San Diego, as the Lead Agency under California law,
and the Bureau of Land Management, as the Federal Lead Agency,
have completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIR/EIS) for the North County Landfill
project. The DEIR/EIS addresses the potential environmental
impacts of three candidate landfill sites: Aspen Road (between
Fallbrook and Rainbow), Blue Canyon (northwest of Warner
Springs), and Gregory Canyon (west of Pala). The permits applied
for at this time are General Plan Amendments for all three sites,
and Major Use Permits for Aspen Road and Gregory Canyon.
The proposed project is acquisition and operation of all three
locations for landfills. The DEIR/EIS addresses the potential
significant environmental effects of the proposed project and is
available for public review at the following North County
libraries: Fallbrook, Ramona, Julian, Borrego Springs, Valley
Center, Vista, San Marcos, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Cardiff,
Rancho Santa Fe, Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, and the North
County Bookmobile. Copies may be purchased from the County
Department of Public Works, 5555 Overland Avenue, Building 2, San
Diego, CA [(619) 694-2177].
Comments are hereby solicited regarding the scope and content of
the environmental information contained in the DEIR/EIS. Due to
the time limits allowed by State and Federal law, your written
comments should be sent by the earliest possible date, but
postmarked no later than March 26, 1990. Please send your
written comments to Sharon Colton, Department of Planning and
Land Use, 5201 Ruffin Road, (MS 0650), San Diego, CA 92123.
Please mark the envelope North County Landfill. Your comments
regarding this DEIR/EIS will be a matter of public record,
available to other agencies, organizations and interested
citizens, and will become a part of the Final EIR/EIS. After
inclusion of the comments received during the public review
period and the agencies' response to those comments, the Final
EIR/EIS will be presented to the San Diego County Planning
Commission and, ultimately, Board of Supervisors for their
consideration prior to certifying the EIR/EIS on the proposed
project. The Bureau of Land Management will use the Final
EIR/EIS as part of its decision-making on the land exchange
related to the County's acquisition of the Blue Canyon site.
DEVELOPMENT FEES IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGION.. _ 5 15~0 '!iI
A SURVEY BY
THE BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
The Building Industry Association of Riverside conducted a survey this
year on fees associating with land development. This survey included the
entire area of the Riverside County, as well as the County Office itself.
The survey include fees such as Permit Fees, Service Impact Fees, Planning
Fees, Water and Sewer Charges, Environmental Charges, and Fees charged
by the School Districts.
The Criteria for which the survey are based are as follows:
Size of the Subdivision:
10 Acres
50 Units
Size of the Unit:
1500 Square Foot Single Family Dwelling Unit
500 Square Foot Garage
3 Bedrooms
2 Bath
Estimated Value of Unit:
'~94,000 - $100,000
For a more detailed fee schedule, please contact the BIA office at
(714) 781 -7310.
THOMAS VAN VOORST
Director of Governmental Affairs
Biff
riverside county iregion
43,,33 ~ St.. Ste. 3600. Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 781-73
75.-150 ~heryl Dri~, Polm Des~t. CA 9225,5 (619) 773-53
DEVELOPMENT FEES IN THE RIVERSII
S'NVIRONMENTAL A~S~SSMENT PEE[ 17) I 17~ I 200 I )0" 2)0 [ 2)0 t 0 t Z~ t 200
BUILDINO PEI$
unit)
Plan Cheer )96 ~g6 ~96 4 i~ 416 ~69 )~6 ~ 420
B~din~ P*rmit 6t} 6Z~ 6t~ 6~ 640 ~6~ 6Z~ 6~) 647
Plum~in~ parmit 47 47 47 ~7 47 48 47 47 76
M~Bani~l P~emit 42 42 42 )7 41 I ~ 42 42 42
El~i~l parmit ~ ~) ~) 68 ~2 35
~e~ Major Buildin~ F~ 120 N/A N/A 120 N/A N/A
MUNICIPAL SERVICE IMPACT PRES
iCper unit)
Part &RecreaLion Dedication Fees 949 0 O 0 1200 94~ 220 290 O
Ro~<l F+~ 0 t~O 0 0 ~}0 0 0 ~00 DE? 0
~blic Facili~ 414 ~00 0 0 0 1 ~0 0 0 0
~ ConSol & ~aina~+ 0 0 ~00 20 12~ 2~0 0 780 80~
Traffl~ ~aUon 114 O 0 O . 0 O ~0 l~O 0
ISUBTOTAL I 1473 I 690 I ~00 I 20 I 2 [~ I 1~4~ I 270 1680 [ 80~
[SUBDIVISION REVIEW FEES
(application fee)
Zone C~an~e 9~o 9~o 400 ~o 62~ 700 400 ~4 ,. 9~o
Planned Unit. Development N/A 2~0 7~0 N/A 690 1160 N/A ~00 600
S~at U~ ~+r~t ~ ~7~ 400 2~0 4~o ~o0 ~00 ~2 ~o0
~neral Plan ~endment 127~ 127~ ~0 3~0 10~0 600 400 ~62 ~0 ,,
Ten~ve Tract Map I~O0 1~00 ~00 2~0 O~0 1000 82~ ~2~ go0
~lln Review }0 2}0 I}00 2}0 1}0 N/A 100 4} }0
~i~ Plan Review * * * * * * * * ~0 ))0 · · * * ~0
[ Final Tract Map ~00 2000 ~00 400 ~)o I~O0 ~00 900 900
SUBTOTAL 4620 4600 4000 1490 [ 4129 ~910 202~ 20&& [ }}00
[AVERAGE COST PER UNIT
I 2641 I 1901 I l?~S I I~?~ I ~4}s I 24~ I z792 I 2s}2 I 22~}
·. Indicates the specified fee is included in another fee.
Indicates more than one possible fee, and the lower was used.
SEWER FEES WATER CA
[ CITIES, [SEWER CAPACITY FEE CHARGED BY: [ FEE PER UNIT
[Banning City, 107'5
,~eaumont City 1800
~iythe , City 82,5
Sathedrai City Coachella VnUey ~WD I }00
~rona Silt 1983
~sert Hot Spangs Mission Water A~ncy 0
~emet EMWD + City 2~9 ~
Indian Wells ~oachetla Valle~ ~D I ~00
IBdto Valley ~ry D~strtct 1000
~ ~tnta ~achella Vatle~ ~WD 1 ~00
~ke ~sinore ~ke Elsinore MWD 1670
Moreno VaUeY EMWD 2030 ..
Nolo 3ity 1
Palm ~ert U~chella Valley MWD 1 }00
Palm Springs" ~sert ~aLer A~ncy 3067
Pe~ City 1200
Rancho Mira~ ~a~ella yaney ~WO t 500
gW of Rive~ide CiW 2300
Rivemtde ~un:y WMWD 2300
~n ]a~to ~D + City 2230
CITIES {WATER CAPACITY FEE CHA:
Bannin,q
~aurnont
[Blythe
Cathedral City
~oacheila
~orona
Desert Hot Surin~s
Hemet
Indian Wells
[ndio
La Quinta
~ake Elsinore
Moreno Valley
~orco
Palm Desert.
Palm Sprin.~s
Perris
Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
Riverside County
San Jacinto
City
City + Beaumont Cherry V~
City
Coachella Valley MWD
esert Water Agency
City
Mission Water A~nc,v
EMWD + City
~oachella Valley MWD
City
Soachella Valley MWD
Lake Elsinore MWD
EMWD
City
~.oachella Valley MWD
Desert Water AEency
City + WMWD
Coachella Valley MWD
City
WMWD
City + EMWD
REGION (EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1988)
DESERT ~PRING'~ ~IRAGE RIVI~R<IDE
COU~TT I SA~
lACINTO I
~L~iNORE [ VALLI~T[ NORCO
280 I 335 I ~D I 3s I ~0 I ~}0 I 0 I 30 I 1}0 [ 477 I 200
61~ ,, 41~ ~72 613 ~I3 ~87 61} 613 635 644 644 61}
47 48 1~7 47 47 47 12~ ~7 ~7 1~ 13~ ~7
42 t8 }7 42 42 41 }~ 42 37 47 47 42
120 N/A N/A 130 130 N/A N/A N/A 120 N/A N/A I 92
I 1272 I 793 I 1210 ) 1282 I 1262 779 I 1263 I 11}2 ,l i}29 I 1}29 I 1329 I 1244
~0 101~ 1260 l~00 300 94~ 0 800 0 1194 610 1~0
~oo oo )o 780 o o o 3~o o ~oo o o
** oo 100 1200 1300 0 0 0 0 0 21}6" 60
100 0 603 66} 962 640 1642 1017 0 7}9 1060 7~8
~o ~o o 17o o ~o o 1~o o i~o i~o 1~o
I 600 I 1ot~ I 2193 I 453~ I 2~62 I 16~ 1842 2317
430 1355 764 22~0 , -. 32~ 1600 1300 1030 2300 2740 4~0
78~ , N/A N/A 618~ 900 N/A 2~0 N/A 300 2400 272~ 600
28~ 169~ 11~7 3770 100 3~0 2~0 l}00 2~0 2}00 4~49 62~
430 1970 1~0 ~2~0 600 ~00 1600 l}00 ~00 2900 ~121 900
640 2290 12~7 6680 1200 37~ 1600 }6}2 2~0 2600 70~4 800
42~ 760 ~0 0 N/A 42~ 108~ 1~17 0 2~00 N/A 100
e. e* 21} 4260 700 e. *. e. .. .. 1~89 -,
1200 1400 900 17~0 1700 ~00 7~0 ~330 100 44~0 2108 4~0
299~ 6070 I ~491 J 28395 3500 197~ 1098~ 9049 2330 15200 23778 3675
6861 I 96763 [ 17~991 J 3194~9 I 196716 I 122663 [ 166766 J 1~2460 J 6882~ I 2109~0 J 288~8~ I 120960
oo Optional infrastructure fee, not to exceed $6000, may be imposed on
specific projects at the discretion of the city.
means the fee is not applicable to that jurisdiction.
:ITY FEES
.'D BY: [ CAPACITY FEE I HOOK-UP FEE I
107~ 2~
12~0 2~O
~oo 3~o
12~o
! 480 Included
!~0
1600 3~2
1360
~2~0
3~0 610
12~o
i~lo ~oo
io~ ~o
o ~?~
~2~0 82~
1 ~0 Included
2~30 900
12~o
I~O0 600
162~ ~60
133~ ~O
8CHCOL FEES BY ~CHOOL DISTRICTS
,SCHOOL DISTRICTS I FEE PER UNIT
Alvord Unified 229,5
B, annmg Unified 229,5
Beaumont Unified 229,5
=oachetla Unifi~ 229 ~
~rona-Norco Unifi~ 229 ~
~ert Center Unif[~ 229 ~
~rt ~nds Unifi~ 2295
Elsinore Elementary ~ 147
Elstnore High ~h~l I 12~
Hemet UnifI~ 229 ~
]urupa Untfi~ 22 ~0
Meni{~ Elemen~ry" 229 ~
Moreno Vauey Unifi~ 22 ~0
Mu~ieta Elementary" 229 ~
Nuvlew Elementary" 229~
Palm Springs Unifi~ 229 ~
Palo Verde Unifi~ 229 ~
Perr~ Elemen~ry 1207
Pe~s ~gh ~h~l 10~8
~ve~ide Unifi~ 22 ~0
~ ]a~to Unlfi~ 2295
Tem~a ~emen~ry ' ' 229 ~
,Val Verde ~ementary" 229 ~
· '$plRS f~s with corresponding high school district
REGION (EFFECTIVE)CTOB~ < 1, 15. 8)
ZLSINORI~ VALLEY DZ~£RT {PitlNO{ MIRAGt: RIV~,R$1DE COUNTY ]A¢INTO ~
280 I 335 ~ 333 ] 35 I 30 I }}o ,] o I 3° ,l 170 I 477 I 200 I
47 ~8 ]47 47 ,7 ~? ]2~ 47 ~7 ]35 133 ~7
42 ]6 }7 42 42 4] ~} 42 37 47 47 42
120 .IA N/A 130 ]30 N/A N/A ./A 120 N/A N/a 92
]272 I 793 I ]2]0 I :282 I ]282 I ??9 I ]263 I ]]52 I 1329 I ]329 ! ]329 I 1244
~}o 1ol} 126o 1~oo 300 94} o 800 o 119~ 61o 1~o
300 oo 30 ?80 o o o 370 o }oo o o
** O0 100 1200 1~00 0 0 0 0 0 2138" 60
100 0 803 683 982 640 ]842 1017 0 7~9 ]060 738
}0 O0 0 170 0 70 0 1~0 0 1}0 1}0 1~0
430 133~ 784 22}0 *, 32} 1800 1300 1030 2300 2740
783 N/A N/A 6183 900 N/A 2}}0 N/A 300 2400 272} 600
28} 1~9} ]]37 3770 100 350 2}}0 1300 2~0 2~00 43~9
4~0 ~970 1~70 }270 600 }00 lGO0 1~00 }00 2900 }]21 900
640 2290 1237 6680 1200 37} 1600 3632 2}0 2800 70}4 800
~2~ 76o ~}o o ~/^ 42} lo8} 1~]? o 2}00 N/^ 1oo
*e *e 213 4260 700 ** ** *e *. ,e 1~69
]200 ]400 900 _17}0 1700 500 7}0 ~0 100 4470 2108 4}0
299} 8070 }49] 2839} 3}00 197} 1098~ 9049 2330 ]}200 I 23778 [ ~6' ~'~
I 106861 I 9876~ [ 173991 I }Ig439 I 196716 I 12268} ,1 166766 I 182460 I 68623 I 210930 I 268}6} I 120960
OO
N/A
Optional infrastructure fee, not to exceed $6000, may be imposed
on specific projects at the discretion of the city.
Indicates the fee is not applicable to that jurisdiction.
iR FEES
,ROrrl~y: [ CAPACITYFE£ I HOOK-UPFEE I
]o7~ 255
aneyWD 12~0 2~0
}oo 3~o
]2~o
168o Inouded
l~O 925
~600
]360 }0
12~0 625
3~0
~250 &25
~5~0 400
10~5 50
0
14&O Included
2~30 900
~2~0
~00 600
162~ 560
J335 50
SCHOOL FEES BY DISTRICTS
I SCHOOL DISTRICTS I Fl:'; Pt~ UNIT [
Alvord Unified 229`5
,~nning Unified 2293
:Seaumont Unified 229,5
Coache~a Unified 229,5
Corona-Norco Unified 229,5
Desert Center Unified 229,5
Desert Sands Unified 229 ,5
~stnore E]ernentm'7 ! ~ ~7
iE3stnore Ht~h ~choo~ ! ! 2.5
Hemet Urafied 229,5
LurUpaUnified 22,50
eniiee Dementar7'° 229`5
Moreno Valley Unified 22`50
Murr~eta Elementary" 229`5
Nuv~ew nementary ' ° 229 ,5
]:,mm Sprin~s Unilied 229,5
Pmo Verde Unified 229,5 .
Perris r~ementar7 1207
Perrts Hil~ ,~..hooi 1088
Riverside Unified 2:2,50
,Sen laanto Unified 22g,5
Ternecu~a Dementary" 229 5
Val Verde Dementary" 229,5
fees with corve~pondmg ~gh .~.hool district
Moore
Bt-rd~all
A~e :~ minu~U*.of Fe~ntar~ 6, 1990 as mailed.
~ ~ ~ntrke~ of 'F~b~Aa~ 13, 1990 as ~ailed.
of Harris Co~ction of La
~e the CSD
documents,
27, 1990, 7:00 p.m., Temecula Community
28816 pUJol Street, Te~ecula, California
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD FEBRUARY 6, 1990
An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services
District was called to order at 8:13 p.m. in the Rancho California
Water District Community Room, 28061 Diaz Road, Temecula,
California. President Pat Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 5 DIRECTORS
Lindemans, Moore,
Muhoz, Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott
F. Field, and Acting Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Terrence E. Aragoni, 41795 Humber Drive, Temecula, addressed
the Board regarding the need to add telephone facilities at
the Sports Park to take care of emergency situations.
Glenn Richardson, representing the Temecula Valley Little
League, introduced Randy Coats, 30949 Calle Pina Colata,
Temecula who spoke in favor of the establishment of a City
Parks and Recreation Department and the need for night
lighting at the Sports Park. He recommended that the Park be
reserved for residents of the City and organizations with
vested interest in the City. He also suggested several
financing methods for funding improvements to the Sports Park.
Larry Lackey, 39592 Long Ridge Drive, Temecula presented the
Directors with a "Free Parks for Kids" petition recommending
that the City pay the fees for the Sports Park use and that
this be funded through the general fund.
Glenn Richardson spoke to items 1.4 and 1.5 of the agenda. He
requested that the CSD adopt a policy which would allow first
use of the parks in the City of Temecula to be reserved for
residents of the City. He also addressed the conflicts of
interest which he feels have occurred in the scheduling of the
facilities by the CSA. He requested the City look into having
an independent arbiter to take control of the facilities
scheduling.
_ CSD Minutes February 6, 1990
Doug Scott, 31130 Humbolt Court, Temecula address the Board
with regard to the CSA policy on unauthorized use of the
fields at the Sports Park. He objected to the threats of
arrest maHe to citizens who were using the fields on a casual
basis when they were free of scheduled activities.
Mark Winslow, 23250 Rancho Merlot Road, representing the
Temecula Valley Little League requested the Board consider the
lump sum payment currently being charged at the beginning of
each season. He stated that the various organizations would
like to have a payment schedule which is more equitable. He
also spoke regarding the negative declarations required for
park improvements. He requested that the Board direct staff
to obtain the permits for installation of water and electric
lines which are currently required for the snack bar at the
Sports Park.
Director Muhoz questioned CSA-143 staff if any plans are in
the works to light the playing fields by the CSA. Jeanine
Overson responded that there were no such plans at this time.
George Campos, 41593 Winchester Road, suite 120, stated that
he hah spoken with Pat Fierro, of the City of Irvine, to
secure a price to light an average playing field. She advised
him that the cost for lighting a typical two-field back-to-
back layout currently is $150,000 to $200,000.
Director Parks questioned staff to determine if any studies
have been made by CSA-143 as to which fields could be lighted.
Jeanine Overson responded that this has not been for the
Sports Park.
Glenn Richardson stated that his Board would be willing to
make a donation for lighting ball fields in lieu of the
existing use fees. He also stated that his organization's
concern is with the use of the parks by individuals who are
not in the CSD or in the CSA and that he feels the use of the
playing fields should be reserved for the children of the
City.
Director Lindemans stated that he feels an appropriation of
funds for hiring a Parks and Recreation Director is in order
at this point.
Director Muhoz suggested that the non-economic aspects of the
presentation be addressed during this meeting.
Chris Hatcher, Parks and Recreation Coordinator addressed the
Board explaining the scheduling of the fields in the CSA-143
area and the efforts which have taken place to work with both
2/14i nut es\Z\6\90 - ~- 0:~/01/90
CSD Minutes
of the Little League organizations.
February 6, 1990
Director Muhoz questioned if the American Little League could
be given priority over any non-CSA residents. Mel Bohlken,
CSA Administrator responded that all the fields have been
booked for the period through June 30, 1990.
Director Moore requested that the members of the Board
consider getting on with the hiring of a Parks and Recreation
Director for the City to begin working on resolving these
matters.
George Campos, 41593 Winchester Road stated that all groups
need to have access to the playing fields. He expressed the
opinion that adult softball should be given the same
consideration as the youth groups. He requested the CSD take
sufficient time to consider all aspects of the problem.
David Hatcher, 27768 Cannon Drive, addressed the subject of
the fees required for the use of the fields and stated that
the costs are high for all of the groups, both adult and youth
organizations. He also complimented the job the CSA is doing
in the total area of providing recreation programs.
Mary Porter, 41479, Chenin Blanc, representing the Temecula
Valley Pop Warner League stated that her organization was not
allowed to use the parks between the hours of 6:00 and 10:00
p.m. all last season. She expressed the concern that the CSA
is sponsoring adult sports teams at the expense of the youth
activities.
John Dedovesh, 39450 Long Ridge Drive commented on the
development fees which have been paid for parks purposes. He
felt that the CSD should determine where these fees are.
Glenn Richardson summarized the presentation by stating that
the Little Leagues do not have a problem with use by the adult
leagues if the players are residents of the City.
President Birdsall suggested that a motion to hire an expert
to look into the use and scheduling situations would be in
order.
It was moved by Director Parks and seconded by Director
Lindemans to hire a consultant to examine the usage and the
equitability of the usage, the lighting problems, investigate
spreading the assessment over the entire City of Temecula and
to examine the overlapping use of facilities between the
County Service Area and the Community Services District.
2/# i nut es \2\6\90 - :~ - 0:~/01 /90
CSD Minutes February 6, 1990
Finally staff was directed to return to the CSD with a report
on the consultant's findings.
Director Muhoz suggested a change in the policy regarding
unauthorized use of the fields. He also suggested authorizing
a payment schedule as opposed to the current lump sum payment
for use. He requested consideration by the CSD to obtain a
telephone for the playing fields at the Sports Park and
authorization of payment of the fees to install the water and
electricity to the snack bar at the Sports Park.
Director Moore, speaking to the motion, questioned if the
position of Parks and Recreation Director could be added.
The motion to hire a consultant was carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Muhoz, Parks
NOES: 1 DIRECTORS: Moore
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
It was moved by Director Muhoz, seconded by Director Lindemans
to change the policy in existence which threatens arrest for
unauthorized use of the playing fields.
City Attorney Scott Field advised the Board that he would need
to investigate the County Ordinance and redraft an Ordinance
for the City Council to consider, in order to effect this
change.
Director Muhoz amended the motion and Director Lindemans
amended the second to direct the City Attorney to come back to
the City Council with an appropriate ordinance.
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Director Muhoz, seconded by Director Parks to
refer to staff the implementation of a payment schedule which
would do away with the requirement for lump sum payment of use
fees at the beginning of a season.
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Director Muhoz, seconded by Director Moore to
refer to staff the installation of the water and electric
lines to the snack bar at the sports park, and to waive the
customary fees.
2/#inute$\2\6\~O -&- 0~/01/~0
February 6, 1990
CSD Minutes
The motion was unanimously carried.
Resolution authorisinq~eneral Manaqer to accept donations for
~ports Park.
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to
adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION CSD NO. 90-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO RECEIVE DONATIONS FOR THE
~ANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore
Mufioz, Parks
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
3. Sports Park Bleachers
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to
accept the donation of the CDM Group, Inc. with the Boards
thanks.
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Muhoz to
adjourn to the next regular meeting at 8:00 p.m. on February
13, 1990, to be held at the Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula. The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
Patricia Birdsall, President
F. D. Aleshire, Secretary
nutes\Z\6\90 -5- 0~/01/90
MINUTES OF a REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECUL~ COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD FEBRU]~RY 13, 1989
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was
called to order at 8:14 p.m. at the Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula by President Pat Birdsall.
ROLL CaLL
PRESENT 5 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz
Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were City Manager/CSD Secretary Frank Aleshire, city
Attorney Scott F. Field, and Acting Deputy City Clerk June S.
Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Richard DeWitt, 37075 Glenoaks Road, spoke regarding the adult
softball program, stating that they have formed an advisory
committee to try to organize a program that would allow both
the adult and children's teams to utilize the fields within
CSA-143.
CBD BUSIHESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to
approve the minutes of January 9, 1990 and January 23, 1990 as
mailed.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Retaining Wall approval
Jeanine Overson Director of CSA-143 gave a staff report
outlining the need for a retaining wall at the Rancho
California Sports Park at this location and the safety
concer~s caused by the erosion at the site.
csd~02~l 3\90
-1-
03/D7/90
.-- CSD Minute~ February 13, 1990
S. K. Jain, County Road Department advised the Board that the
slope is very unstable and at present is jeopardizing the
integrity of the roadway above (Margarita Road).
Director Moore questioned if the wall could be treated with
any material which would protect it from graffiti. Mr. Jain
suggested that certain types of plantings could be utilized to
cover the wall, therefore discouraging graffiti.
Jeanine Overson stated that the high school art departments
might also be interested in painting murals on the wall.
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans
to approve the plans and specifications for the construction
of a retaining wall at the Rancho California Sports Park, to
authorize the Road Department to act as lead agency on the
bidding process and direct the County Clerk to advertise for
bids up to the hour of 10:00 AM Wednesday, February 21, 1990.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore
Mufioz, Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
DIRECTORS REPORTS
Director Lindemans reported that he had recently visited the
new tot lot at the Rancho California Sports Park and he would
like to see some benches provided for adult seating.
Director Mufioz inquired what landscaping plans were for the
park.
Jeanine Overson advised that a number of donations of products
and services for landscaping have been made and that the new
tot lot has benches planned and they should be installed by
March first.
Director Parks asked Ms. Overson to coordinate the meeting to
address the scheduling problems between the Little League and
Adult Softball advisory committee.
csc~O2V~ 3%90
-2-
03/07~
~ CSD Minutes February 13, 1990
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks and
unanimously carried to adjourn at 8:32 PM to an adjourned
regular meeting to be held at 8:00 PM on February 27, 1990 at
the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula,
California.
ATTEST:
Patricia Birdsall, President
F. D. Aleshire, Secretary
csd~02~13\90
-3-
03/07/9O
SUBNITTAL TO TRR BOARD OF DIRECTORS
TENECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Ivan F. Tennant SUBMITTAL DATE: February 26, 1990
Acting Road Commissioner and County Surveyor
SUBJECT:
Construct Retaining Wall Rancho California
Sports Park - Temecula Community Services District
RECONNENDED NOTION:
That the Board of Directors of Temecula Community Services
District accept the low bid of Harris Construction of La Habra in
the amount of #113,310.00, award the contract to that firm and
authorize your Chairman to execute the contract documents.
JUSTIFICATION:
On February 13, 1990, the Council authorized the Road Department
to advertise for bid to construct a retaining wall at the Rancho
California Sports Park. Bids for this project were opened in the
Office of the Road Commissioner at 10:00 A.M., Wednesday,
February 21, 1990. Twelve bids were received; the lowest and
best bid being submitted by Harris Construction in the amount of
$113,310.00. The bid is $6,690.00 or 5.6% below the Engineer's
Estimate.
The contractor is qualified and funds are being provided by the
Temecula Community Services District.
W. O. #68-8069
Ivan F. Tennant,
Acting Road Commissioner
and County Surveyor
IFT:FV:rsm
00000000
00000~ ~
00000~00
00000000
00000000
0 rn II
II
Z
7
· q O0 O00'..100
II
~ ~, II
):,Z
n 0 il
r- 0 .
Z
C
Z
000 ~
m
z
ooooo~oo
ooooo~oo ~
oooooooo ~
ooo~oo~
ooo~oooo
oooooooo
~ 00~00~00
00000000
0 00000000
r~
~o
~o
~z
~o
0
0
000~00~0
00000~0~
00000000
00000000
00000000
OZ
Cm
Z~n
ZO
~Z
CXTY MGR
tO the (~SD;
-!*
03/08/9o 3:59p,
Resume of Qualifications
WILLIAM L. HOLLEY
7515 Valle Vista Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91750
Telephone (714) 985-4187
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE:
Director of Community Services
November 8, 1977 through November 15, 1987
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Supervisor: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Responsible for the initial development and ongoing
administration and operation of the newly incorporated city's
Community Services Department and its programs, which included:
o Developing departmental goals and objectives;
o Departmental budget preparation and administration;
o Departmental personnel selection and training;
o Presentations to City Council and Gity Commissions:
o Legislative analysis and advocacy;
o Gommunity relations, including City newsletter;
o Park acquisition, design and development;
o Recreation program development;
o Disaster Preparedness; and,
o Historic Preservation.
DXstrict Manager County Service Area No. 50
December 15, 1975 through November 8, 1977
County of San Bernardino, California
Appointment by: San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor: A1 Reid, Director, Special Districts Department
Responsible
communit
included:
for developing a new special district for the
of Alta Loma, Cucamonga and Etiwanda. Duties
o Developing and implementing a comprehensive master plan
for park and recreation services for the Tri-Community;
o District budget preparation;
o District personnel selection and training;
o Administrative support of District Advisory Commission and
Municipal Advisory Council;
o Park acquisition, design and development;
o Presenting positions of Commission and MAC to County Board
of Supervisors.
Resume of Qualifficattons
William L. Holley
Page 2
OTHER EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE:
City of Riverside, California
State of California
United States Army
EDUCATION:
o Riverside City Colleges;
o University of La Verne, B.S. Public Admtn.;
o University of La Verne, M.P.A. Candidate, May 1990.
REFERENCES:
o Available upon request.