Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040390 CC Agenda'L'BMBG~,~ C~Z'L"L' (~)UMCXZ, & ~.BGUZ,~R MB~'Z'XMG 3t~RZZ, 3 · 3.9g0 !fezt~ 4n Order: Ordinance: No. 90-05 Resolution: No. 90-35 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor Tim Riter Rancho Christian Church Flag Salute Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks PRBOBHT&TIONS/ PBOCLMI~TIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink **Request To Speak- form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a *,Request To Speak- form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CON, nuT NOTZCm TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items to he removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/~enc~O~m3gO ~ 03~29/g0 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve ninutes of March 13, 1990 as mailed. o ~pl4cation for &lcoho14c Beverage T.4cense An application filed by Valentin H. Wirth for the Ponderosa Inn, 41925 Third Street, Temecula RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file PUBLIC HF~RXNG 3. CUP-3076 &Uto De&lermhip on West Side o£ Ynes Road, South of Winohester Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- ARESOLUTION OFT HE CITY COUNCIL OFT HE CITY OF TEMECUL~ &PPROVING CUP NO. 30?6 TO PERMIT ItN &UTO DEALEUHIP ~T COUNCXL BUSXNES8 4. o ® Roe4denoy Re~u4rements for City Commissioners · Presentation by John Affolter Te~eoula Community Center Bxpansion RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize the Mayor to send a letter of support to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors Request for,allooat4on for Curb. ~utter and Sidewalks on Pujol oft,st Along the Tomsoul0 Town Association Property. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Allocate $35,120 for curb, gutter and sidewalks on Pujol Street in front of the Town Association Property. O3/29/9O e Ro~uest £orDonat~on to 8o~utions Recovery 8erv4ce Presentation by Rocky Hill, Director RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize the City Manager to Approve a Lease Agreement between the City and WestMar Commercial Brokerage for the Existing. City Hall and the Building Immediately behind the Existing City Hall at Windsor Park I on Business Park Drive for a Period of Five Years. Courts4,1 Workshop on Roads/Xssesstent Distriots/Flood Control Presentations by Ivan Tennant, Acting City Engineer and Dave Sheldon, Deputy Flood Control Engineer CIT~ MIdfitGER REPORT CITY &TTORN~Y REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Next meeting: April 10, 1990, 7:00 p.m., Temecula Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California Community 2/agen(M/040390 3 03/20~J0 !(INUTE8 OF A RE(~ULAR I(EETIN(~ OF THE TEHECUL~ CITY COUNCIL HELD I(ARCH 1.3v 1.990 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:04 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCI LMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Mike Rogers of New Covenant Fellowship. PLEDGE OF ~LLEGIJtNCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Pat Birdsall. ;~.-NNOUNCEHENT8 PUBLIC CO)(HEITT8 Steve Bolt, Owner of Omega Advertising, 28127 Front Street, addressed the City Council regarding the upcoming Merchant Exposition to be heldApril 6, 7, and 8, 1990. He invited the members of the City Council to participate as booth judges and also to man an information booth at high traffic times to address questions and relay information on the City's progress. Leigh Engdahl, representing the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors spoke regarding the Business License Fee. She reported that the Chamber Board recommended that the adoption of such a tax is premature at this time. The Chamber encouraged the City Council to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to determine the need for such a tax, the benefit to local business, the presence of existing legislation, the enforcement cost, and the best way to meet the City's objectives and match the benefits to the expense. # i nut es\3\13%90 - 1 - 03/29/90 City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 Jeff Cuny, 30080 Corte Cantera, spoke regarding the development of the area as it affects the schools, particularly in the area of the Costain Signet Homes Tract. Gary G. Burg, 30219 Corte Cantera, also a resident of the Costain Homes Tract stated that the City needs to look at the high density projects in the immediate vicinity of his tract. He feels parks and open space are important needs of the residents in both existing and future housing within that area. Jerry Guzzetta, 29916 Ave. Cima del Sol, addressed the Council and questioned the number of apartment units currently existing in the City. He also asked if the City knew what the occupancy rate is in those existing apartments. Mr. Guzzetta asked if there is a formula used to determine the need for additional apartment development and he stressed the need for more parks development. RECE88 Mayor Parks declared a recess at 7:17 PM to allow staff to set up additional chairs to accommodate the large audience. The meeting was reconvened at 7:20 PM. CONSENT CALEND~R It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve the Consent Calendar items as follows: 1. Minutes 1.1 Approved minutes of February 13, 1990 as mailed. Public Use Permi2 679 - Trinity Christian Church 2.1 Received and Filed Notice of Decision (Riverside County Planning Commission). #J nutes\]\l]\~O -2- 0~/29/90 -- City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 Resolution approvinq Payment of Demands 3.1 Adopted a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL~ APPROVING THE FARRANT REGISTER D~TED NARCH 13v 1990. Resolution Denying Plot Plan No. 1168 4.1 Adopted a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 1168 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY NE/kR RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND FRONT STREET. 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 COUNCIL BUSINESS ® Parcel Map 23426 and Tract 23160 City Manager Aleshire explained that this item had been acted upon at the previous meeting but that the developer had agreed to return to this Council meeting to more fully describe the project for the Councilmembers. Nick Tavaglione, the developer described the project using several renderings. He stated the project will contain 130 units on 10 acres. He listed some to the amenities such as pools, spas, tot lots and green belts. This will be a condominium development and it is currently sold out. Ninutes\3\13\90 -3- 03/29/90 City Council Minutes March 13, 1990 In response to questions from Councilmember Muhoz, he stated that 20% of the units are reserved by investors, the remainder are by private individuals. He also answered that the development has been assessed $250,000. in fees for schools. Mr. Tavaglione requested that the City Council not adopt a negative attitude about developers. He said that the community had been developed thus far by developers and that it is their desire to continue to assist in an orderly and attractive development of the City of Temecula. e Report from City of Temecula Traffic Committee City Manager Aleshire introduced Sergeant Ron Roberts who addressed the City Council giving the short-term recommendations of the committee. He advised the Council that the committee recommends the following: Hiring non-sworn employees to provide traffic direction at the following locations during peak traffic hours: ee Winchester Road at the southbound 1-15 off-ramp. Winchester Road at the northbound 1-15 off-ramp. Winchester Road at Ynez Road. Rancho California Road at the southbound 1-15 off- ramp. Rancho California Road at the northbound 1-15 off- ramp. To make the following roadway Winchester Road: modifications at Create an additional westbound traffic lane on Winchester Road from Ynez Road to west of the 1-15. Post anti-gridlock warning signs on Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue. To make the following roadway modifications at Rancho California Road: Lengthen the left turn 1-15 freeway access lanes on Rancho California Road. Post anti-gridlock warning signs on Rancho California Road. #inutes\3\13\~O -&- 03/29/90 - City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 Sgt. Roberts outlined the costs contained in the report and the suggested funding recommendations. He advised that a CalTrans Encroachment Permit will be required prior to implementation of the traffic control program. Councilmember Muhoz commended the committee on the report and asked how long it might take to get the encroachment permit. Sgt. Roberts answered that the committee has been working through Senator Bergeson's office and they feel it can be expedited within a matter of weeks. Councilmember Lindemans questioned if the figures in the report included insurance coverage for the traffic directors. Sgt. Roberts responded that the figures include employer contributions for Workers Compensation and FICA deductions. Councilmember Lindemans also asked if the Chamber of Commerce has committed to the voluntary contribution program suggested in the report on page 5. Councilmember Birdsall asked if this would be a tax-free contribution from the Chamber members. City Manager Aleshire said the staff will research that matter and advise the Council. Chuck Collins, of the Advisory Committee, reported on the freeway interchanges and bridges and the construction timetables for their completion. He gave a brief background on the status of the overpasses at Rancho California and Winchester Roads and discussed the circulation infrastructure for the surface roads within the City. Knox Johnson, a member of the Advisory Committee, presented the committee's traffic survey results. This survey of 44 local companies and compiled the number of employee trips generated per day between the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. He advised the Council that the committee had also compiled the average daily trips (ADT) for Rancho California Road at the 1-15 at 29,920 per 24-hour period, Winchester Road at 1-15 at 28,855 per 24-hour period and Winchester Road at Ynez, at 17,000 per 24 hour period. Councilmember Muhoz inquired if the data suggested that staggered work hours would help. Mr. Johnson responded that it would be a real task to convince employers to change their business hours and it would require not only a major public relations effort but also coordination among the various employers to make it work. N ~ nutes\3\13\90 - 5- 03/29/90 City COuncil Minutes March 13. 1990 Greg Erickson, representing Bedford Properties, 28765 Single Oak Drive, spoke in favor of the use of the Civilian Traffic Control Officers and said Bedford Properties will contribute the sum of $10,000 to assist with the program. Mayor Parks questioned the reason for the program being budgeted on a monthly basis. Sgt. Roberts answered that it will probably take two months to fully implement the program and therefore funding should be for a period of six to seven months. Councilmember Lindemans questioned who would be supervising the project. Sgt. Roberts replied that this would be up to the Temecula City Council. Councilmember Muhoz asked if the committee would be willing to continue with the program and assist in the hiring of the employees and in the implementation. Sgt. Roberts said the committee would be happy to continue in this role. Councilmember Birdsall asked what the cost of training would be? Sgt. Roberts stated that an exact figure had not been developed, but the training will be based on the CHP's training program and the cost should be minimal. Mayor Parks congratulated the committee on the report and thanked the members for their individual efforts. Councilmember Muhoz stated he would like to have the program go forth at once and he also commended Bedford Properties for their offer of support. Mayor Parks said he would like to see the City Staff prepare a resolution adopting this program. He also recommended that the City provide matching funds to those made by the business community and public. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Muhoz to direct City staff to prepare an appropriate resolution. Councilmember Birdsall also suggested that Sgt. Roberts be authorized to proceed with obtaining the needed encroachment permit. City Manager F. D. Aleshire advised that he would be meeting with CalTrans in two days and would address the permit at that time. The motion was unanimously carried. N J nutes\3\13\90 -6- 03/:~9/90 City Council Minutes March 13, 1990 ]tECEBB The mayor declared a recess at 8:00 PM, to be reconvened to a Community Service District Meeting. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 PM with all members present. COUNCIL BUBINBBB (Continued) CUP-3076 Auto Dealership on West Side of Ynez, South of Winchester City Manager Aleshire advised the Council that this matter be set for Public Hearing in two weeks. Keith Andrews, the applicant requested that the Council make a decision at this meeting if possible. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to set a public hearing for two week or as soon as possible thereafter. .The motion was unanimously carried. Budget for the Seven Nonths Ending June 30, 1990 City Manager Aleshire introduced Mary Jane Henry, the Interim Finance Director who presented a staff report which pointed out the estimated revenues and expenditures for FY 89-90. Councilmember Lindemans questioned the location in the budget of an allocation for computers for the Planning Department. Ms. Henry answered that the allocation is in Exhibit 4 listed under Community Development. Councilmember Lindemans also asked about the language in Sections 4 and 5 of the resolution. He questioned authorizing overexpenditure in individual budget accounts, and the authorization of the City Manager to transfer between budget categories. Mayor Parks questioned the methods used to compute the figures used in the department allocations. Ms. Henry responded that a combination of actual to-date expenditures and estimates prepared by the staff were used. # i r~tes\3\13\~O - 7- 03/29/90 City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 Councilmember Birdsall questioned if part of the Transient Occupancy Tax should be allocated for promotion of the City. City Manager Aleshire advised that a separate account for promotions could be set up within the budget if this is the City Council's direction. He commented on Sections 4 and 5 of the resolution, stating that this is standard practice in municipalities. He advised that the total budget amount in any given program area can not be exceeded without the City Council's approval. Councilmember Birdsall said she felt it would be much too time consuming for the Council to perform individual reconsideration each time a budget transfer of funds between departments needed to take place. Councilmember Moore stated that she feels accountability is included in the budget and to remove Sections 4 and 5 from the Resolution would cause unnecessary delays in the City's day to day operations. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Muhoz to remove Sections 4 and 5 of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 90-26. The motion was defeated by the following roll call vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Muhoz NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded Councilmember Moore to adopt Resolution No. 90-26. by The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBER~: Lindemans, Muhoz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Muhoz stated that he feels the Council needs to have more information regarding the expenditures being made by City staff. Councilmember Lindemans asked that a budget be prepared to begin July 1, 1990. N J nutes\3\13\90 -8- 03/:>9/90 city Council Minutes March 13. 1990 CDBG l~unds - Sa~H~oks Park City Manager Aleshire presented a reprot and application for CDBG funds. He said the County is proposing a joint project whereby the County will appropriate $60,000 from 89-90 funds for park improvements and the City will commit a like amount from the Temecula CDBG budget for FY 90-91. Jim Tebbets, representing the County of Riverside Community Development DePartment gave a staff report explaining the proposed improvements which include 1) curbs and gutters, sidewalks, pavement and street lights along Moreno Road and Mercedes Street; 2) construction of a parking lot to serve the park, fire station and museum; 3) providing an access way from the street to the park playground area. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to authorize the City Manager to sign the application for funds on behalf of the City. The motion was unanimously carried. 10. Resolution of Intent - Nello Roos District CYD-88-L2 city Manager F. D. Aleshire advised the City Council regarding the status of the negotiations and the and the basic features of the agreement which would allow the March 23rd election of the property owners to proceed. He stated that the complete right-of-way on Ynez can not be acquired to the full 134 feet. He also advised that specific costs will not be known until the right-of-way costs have been determined. He stated that the City Attorney has prepared an amended copy of the Resolution of Intention. Councilmember Moore asked the reason for the Council receiving two copies of the suggested resolution. City Attorney Scott Field explained that one copy is a "red line" version to show the changes that have been made since the previous draft and the other copy is a "clean" copy. Councilmember Lindemans questioned the inclusion of the mitigation fees in Section 9 of the resolution. The City Attorney advised that for the developments on Ynez Rd. Two lanes would be the City's responsibility, and four lanes would be the developer's responsibility. In the case of property north of Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Bedford Properties has agreed to pay for the entire construction of six lanes. N~ nutes\3\13\~ -9- 03/~/90 City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 They will then be eligible for a credit against future traffic impact fees. Mayor Parks stated that the City has not adopted impact fees and he does not feel the City Council agreed to grant any credit. Councilmember Muhoz stated that the City should not be held responsible for development of the fifth and sixth lanes since the need for six lanes is due to traffic which will be generated by the development of the area. Councilmember Lindemans said he wished to reiterate for the record that he is not opposed to this Mello Roos in its entirety if the developers pay all of the costs, with the possible exception of the Performing Arts Center. Councilmember Muhoz questioned why the 10 year limitation on sales tax reimbursement was changed. Mayor Parks responded that this was the result of the Council agreement to pay their fair share of the costs. Mr. Muhoz also questioned section (c) on page 14 regarding reimbursing owners of property within the district any amounts which they have advanced to the County for payment of costs and expenses incurred in the establishment of the district. He asked if the dollar amount is known and whether the City should be reimbursing for these costs. Mayor Parks questioned if the language should be changed with regard to Page 8, subsection (1), referring to how the sales tax will be disbursed to the currently developed properties who pay sales tax. He stated there are properties who generate jobs which should be accommodated in this agreement. Scott Field advised that the fair share of the reimbursement for Ynez will not be known until the engineers have determined the costs of the widening. He explained that this document reflects the basic philosophy that the City will pay for the last two lanes on Ynez and the developers will pay for the other four. He also advised that final agreements will be more detailed when they are completed. Lisa Peterson, representing Bedford Properties, made comments outlining the areas of disagreement the property owners have as follows: 1) Tax reimbursement should not be based on the County lowering the $60,000,000 limit of the district to some other figure. She stated the owners have no objection to the City asking the County to do this but they do not like having this as a condition. 2) Tax reimbursement has not been # i nutes\3\13\90 - 10- 03/29/90 City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 clearly defined as to developed versus undeveloped properties, all developed properties should receive the sales tax reimbursement and then the undeveloped properties would get any surplus. 3) Currently the resolution also commits the property owners to a future Community Facilities District. The property owners philosophically support the idea of the City pursuing a CFD but they do not wish to be bound to a new district until they know the details of it. City Attorney Scott Field stated that there are two provisions which he wished to make the Council aware of. The resolution states that the City may establish a traffic impact program and that the land owners will participate in it. The second point on page 16(c) addresses the possible formation of a regional community facilities district which would back up the traffic mitigation fees to be used to retire the debt and in that way the City could raise the funds sooner to build additional traffic improvements. He advised that the owners have stated their objection to the regional CFD until they have seen some details about what that is going to entail. Mayor Parks said he feels the Council should strike the language contained in subsection (c) on page 16. City Attorney Field stated the City would like to get as many commitments to the traffic impact fees and a future CFD as possible. This in effect is gaining votes on these matters in advance. Lisa Peterson said that on behalf of the property owners they would like to see the scope of work that is proposed, the type of improvements that are proposed, the properties that would be improved and a less vague definition of the future Community Facilities District. Councilmember Moore stated that the City wishes to have the option to initiate a CFD to accomplish other projects in the future such as the Margarita Road widening and even the cultural center. The City Attorney stated that the thought is when the City is able to have a major thoroughfare program in place, the City will be looking at the other improvements identified in the Kunzman and Associates report, as yet unfunded, such as Front Street,. Jefferson, widening of bridges, etc. # i nutes\:]\ 1]\90 - 11 - 0]/29/90 City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to extend the meeting to 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Jack Raymond, 613 West Valley Parkway, Escondido, a property owner, asked the City Council to take a series of straw votes indicating the City's conceptual thinking in order to assist the property owners who must make a decision regarding placing a lien on their properties in the amount of $16,000,000. Mayor Parks asked Councilmembers to indicate their position on the following issues: 1) That the amount of the proposed CFD be reduced from $60 million to $15-$18 million. City Attorney Field clarified that if the land owners wish to pay for additional improvements without the City's providing any sales tax reimbursement, as a general matter this will be acceptable to the City. The Council straw vote on this item was unanimous. 2) That the reimbursement agreement for sales tax would apply to all developed properties, not just sales tax generators. The Council straw vote on this item was unanimous. 3) That the provisions of subsection (c) on page 16 (draft no. 6) be deleted from the agreement. Councilmember Lindemans stated he felt these property owners have probably contributed enough through this Mello Roos. Mayor Parks said he felt they should not be obligated without seeing the details of another community facilities district. The straw vote was carried with Councilmember Muhoz in opposition. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to continue this matter for one week. The motion was unanimously carried. N i nutes\:~\1:~\90 - 12 - 0~/29/90 -- City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 CITY IOk!TAGER REPORTS 11. Report on Status - Club Valencia, Tract 23304 City Manager Frank Aleshire gave a staff report outlining the details of the project's timetable. He advised that the City Attorney's memo indicates that public safety issues could be a valid reason to place additional conditions on this tract or deny final approval. Ronni Crossland, 30632 Hollyberry Lane addressed the Council speaking about potential traffic hazards which will be created by this development. She also expressed concerns that emergency access is very limited. She stated that this is likely to add an additional 500 children in the area who would be walking to the nearby schools, having to cross very busy streets. William Coghlan, representing IDM Apartments Corporation, advised the City Council that security gates are being considered for this project. He said that he would be happy to make a full presentation to the Council in two weeks time showing them all the features of the project. .Councilmember Lindemans stated that he had spoken to the developer with regard to the imposition of the traffic impact fees and that they are willing to pay the $150 per unit fees. He stated that with the improvements in police protection being made by the City and the improvements in the circulation element, this project should not pose the problems he originally feared. Mayor Parks suggested that the developer have his original engineer update the traffic study presented to the County. Coleen Dobbs, 42056 Roancake, stated that there is no left turn lane available at the site and that there will not be a left turn lane there in the future. She spoke with regard to the 30 foot wide bridges which are included in the plans to cross "canals". She questioned the safety aspects of using these bridges in the event of emergencies such as a major fire. Finally Ms. Dobbs questioned the amount being paid by the development to schools. Councilmember Lindemans responded that it is his understanding that this project is assessed $1,360 per dwelling unit in school fees for a total of $469,000. # ~ nutes\3\13%90 - 13- 03/29/90 City Council Minutes March 13, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue this matter for a period of two weeks. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Muhoz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to extend the meeting time to 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. 12. North county L&ndfill E.I.R. City Manager Aleshire reported on the proposed locations for three landfill sites in northern San Diego County. He discussed a letter dated March 13, 1990, from Philip Anthony, Inc. proposing to prepare an impact study for the City at a cost of $4,000. Councilmember Birdsall said she felt the City Council should have some representation at the hearing to be held March 15, 1990 in Warner Springs. Councilmember Mufioz expressed his concerns with the traffic which would be generated on Highway 79 South, as a result of trucks going to and from the proposed dump site. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Muhoz to authorize the City Manager to retain the firm of Philip Anthony, Inc. to represent the City of Temecula in a consulting capacity during the hearings being held and to coordinate with other concerned agencies in Riverside County. The motion was unanimously carried. Councilmember Muhoz asked that the consultant represent the City at the hearing scheduled on the Blue Canyon site to be held on March 15th. 13. BX& Survey of Development Fees City Manager Aleshire explained that the material on development fees had been presented at the request of Councilmember Lindemans and it is a receive and file item. Mayor Parks pointed out that the material is outdated and requested staff to check into more current information which shows the Temecula Valley and Murietta areas fees. Ni nutes\3\13\90 -l&- 03/;)9/90 City Council Minutes March 13. 1990 14. Introduction of the Planninq Director and City Enqineer City Manager Aleshire introduced Ron Esplain, Vice President of Willdan and Associates who then introduced the staff members who will be working on the City of Temecula projects in Willdan's consulting capacity. He introduced Ross Geller, Division Planning Manager, Tim Serlet, who will be acting City Engineer and Traffic Engineer Said Omar. He advised that Willdan and Associates has served in a similar capacity for the Cities of Moreno Valley, Highland and 29 Palms. Ross Geller outlined that Phase One will be to process pending permits. Staff from Willdan will be in Temecula City Hall one day per week and will open an information counter. Phase Two will start the transition to full time City control of the planning process. They will coordinate the transmittal of documents from the County to the City, they will prepare forms and documents and will conduct work sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission as well as develop staffing needs recommendations. The engineering department will provide plan check services and will coordinate the transition of all files. CITY ~TTORI~EY REPORTS None presented CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Lindemans requested that the matter of the City business license be added to a future agenda and also asked staff to study the feasibility of forming an ad hoc committee to act as a redevelopment agency. Councilmember Moore reported on the Sheriff's negotiating committee meeting and the consideration of interim services through June 30, 1990. She asked that the proposal of the committee be placed in resolution form and added to the agenda for the next meeting. Councilmember Mufioz spoke regarding the comments made by the City Manager during the meeting of March 3, 1990. He stated that he objected to the comments because he felt it is inappropriate to deny the public the right to express their spontaneous reactions at any public meeting. He asked that the City Council be more constructive in their thinking and #inutes\$\l:]\~O -15- - Citv Council Minutes March 13. 1990 that he appreciated the expression of diverse opinions. He also expressed his objection to the suggestion that he and Councilmember Lindemans did not cooperate with the other members of the City Council. ~DJOINT It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans,seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 10:57 PM to a meeting to be held on March 20, 1990 at 7:00 PM in the Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK 03/29/90 Applied m~lor Sec. 24044 I-I Effective Date: ~s~ance 3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S) Effective Date: FEE Ogke Oxlv LIC. TYPE 300.00 41 Fee 198.00 $ TOTAL · 498.00 7. Are Premises Inside City Limits? ~1o (romp) (Porto) 10. Have you ever violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Department per- taining to the Act? 11. Explain o "YES" answer to Items 9 or 10 on on attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. 12. Applicant agrees (a) Ihat any manager employed in on-sale licensed premises will have all the qualifications of o licensee, and (b) that he will hal violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. '~"- ' .... .~_~ ff_?_?_~ ~e_ ...................... Date ....... ~_LJ_4_/~o_ ............ 13. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County 'of 14. APPLICANT , ,//.,/ '..~ *-~P"' -///' ) "i SiGN HERE .~:~,~,~_-,...T.~____,_,_,~_~_ ...... _(__-_-=_/___/" .................................................................. APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR 15. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of ...................................... Date ............................. iij~ieenl M ~ licen~e wll~ ~ Iq~edt~ #ebllity le ~e Deportment. 16. Nome(s)of Licemoo(s) 17. Signature(s)of Licensec(s) 18, License Number(s) 19. Location City and Zip Code County Nmber and Sl~*et RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CUP NO 3076 AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AT YNEZ ROAD (A.P. NO. 921-080-039) WHEREAS, Dan Atwood filed CUP/Plot Plan No. 3076 in accordance with the Riverside County land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on 2/14/90, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission's hearing the Commission approved said CUP; and WHEREAS, Keith M. Andrews of Toyota of Temecula Valley appealed the Commissions determination to the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said appeal on March 27, 1990, at with time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said CUP; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Director's proceedings and Staff Report regarding the CUP appeal; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Ae 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 Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:52pm ao 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 studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinance.s The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed CUP 3076 is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:52pm Resolution No. 90- Page 2. (2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that the CUP 3076 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Do 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 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. OR Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:52pm Resolution 90- Page 3. Section 2. Section 3. Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. OR Eo As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the CUP is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The applicant need not comply with Conditions 1 through 4, of the Road Commissioner's letter, dated February 13, 1990, because the improvements described in said conditions are to be provided pursuant to Community Facilities District No. 88-12, Assessment District No. 161, and the construction of Palm Plaza, and further, the impact of the auto dealership being in operation prior to said improvements is negligible. Environmental Compliance. An initial study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves CUP No. 3076 for the operation and construction of Toyota of Temecula Valley located at A.P. No. 921-080-039 subject to the following conditions: Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:52pm Resolution No. 90- Page 3. Exhibit A, attached hereto, except that Conditions 1 through 4 of the Road Commissioner's letter, dated February 13, 1990, are waived. Payment of the applicable appeal fees to the City of Temecula. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd day of April, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:52pm RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CUP NO 3076 AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AT YNEZ ROAD (A.P. NO. 921-080-039) WHEREAS, Dan Atwood filed CUP/Plot Plan No. 3076 in accordance with the Riverside County land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on 2/14/90, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission's hearing the Commission approved said CUP; and WHEREAS, Keith M. Andrews of Toyota of Temecula Valley appealed the Commissions determination to the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said appeal on March 27, 1990, at with time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said CUP; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Director's proceedings and Staff Report regarding the CUP appeal; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: 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 Resos/90-$5 03/29/90 5:541:~ ao requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: O) 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 studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinance.s The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed CUP 3076 is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:54pm Resolution No. 90- Page 2. (2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that the CUP 3076 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: O) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of State law and City ordinances. (2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. OR Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:5~pm Resolution 90- Page 3. Section 2. Section 3. De Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Eo As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. OR As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the CUP is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Fo The applicant need not comply with Conditions 1 through 4, of the Road Commissioner's letter, dated February 13, 1990, because the improvements described in said conditions are to be provided pursuant to Community Facilities District No. 88-12, Assessment District No. 161, and the construction of Palm Plaza, and further, the impact of the auto dealership being in operation prior to said improvements is negligible. Environmental Compliance. An initial study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves CUP No. 3076 for the operation and construction of Toyota of Temecula Valley located at A.P. No. 921-080-039 subject to the following conditions: Resos/90~35 03/29/90 5:54pm Resolution No. 90- Page 3. Exhibit A, attached hereto, except that Conditions 1 through 4 of the Road Commissioner's letter, dated February 13, 1990, are waived. Payment of the applicable appeal fees to the City of Temecula. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd day of April, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] Resos/90-35 03/29/90 5:54pm Dan Atwood 2380 First St. San Bernardino, CA 93063 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FAST TRACK NO. 038-89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3076, Amd Project Description: Auto dealership including sales and service. Assessor's Parcel No.:921-080-039 District/Area~ Temecula The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a Toyota dealership including sales, service, and administration. 2. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3076, Amended ~l. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside.and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the permlttee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee ~ shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Ex/libit A, Amended #1, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department's transmittal dated 02-13-90, a copy of which is attached. 8. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in _ accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated 03-13-90, a copy of which is attached. CUP NO. 307~ FAST TRACK NO. 038-89 --ndltions of Approval 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance 'with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated'02-05-90, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section Of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 02-06-90, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section's transmittal dated 01-24-90, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section's transmittal dated 02-06-90, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated 08-02-83, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San Bernardino County Museum's transmittal dated 01-24-90, a copy of which is attached. A paleontologist shall be on site for the entire grading operation. The paleontologist will be authorized to divert and direct grading operations to facilitate the evaluation and, if necessary the salvage of exposed fossils. The project proponent will pay for the analysis of any fossil finds and subsequent report preparation and curation. (Added per Planning Commission on 2/14/90) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation's transmittal dated 01-10-90, a copy of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved Landscape, Irrigation and Shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. CUP NO. 3076 FAST TRACK NO. 038-89 Conditions of Approval 17. 18. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, six (6) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The looation, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Soction 18.12, and shall be accompanied by a f~ling fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348. The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348, section 18.12 and include a rain shut-off device. In addition, the plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage. A minimum of 103 parking spaces shall be required in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 115 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth .of 3 inches, on ~ inchAs of Class II base.. A minimum of three (3) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height Of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning " In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 3 ~CUP NO. 3076 fAST TRACK NO. 038-89 Conditions of Approval 21. 22. 23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Bldg. & Safety (Grading) Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department CALTRANS Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. If signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the appropriate fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 348 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to sign installation. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit M-1 (Materials Board) and Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations). These are as follows: Use Mate~,] Color Roof Mission Tile by monier Mission Red Siding Stucco Paint Cream #103 Detratrend Cielo Blanco #250 Exposed wood Frames Decratrend Russet (721) Black Anodized Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, an six (6) eight foot high precision decorative block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the service area. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. (Amended at Planning Commission on 2/14/90) Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening CUP NO. 3076 ~ST TRACK NO. 038-89 _ ~nditions of Approval 27. A total of one large trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose an adequate supply of bins shall be located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The enclosure shall be eight feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bins from external view. 28. 29. 30. 32. 33. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structuza! Engineer shall certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. A total of five (5) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. CUP NO. 3076 FAST TRACK NO. 038-89 nditions of Approval 34. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. 35. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and i=rigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 36. Ali utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed underground. 37~ Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. 38. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of Riverside demonstrating compliance with Conditions 14 and 14a of Conditional Use Permit No. 3076. (Added per Planning Commission on 2/14/90) 39. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. JA:sc 2/23/90 OFFICE OF ROAD CO/~/~I$$10NER & COUNTY SURVEYOR LeRoy D. Smoot ItoAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Ro g (Auto Sales Facility) CU 3076 - Amend #1 Team $ - SMD #9 A~ #111-111-111-9 FTA #038-89 LadLes and Gentlemen= The Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the ~raffl¢ study for ~he above referenced project. The traffic study has been prepared in accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and practices, utiliz£ng County approved guidelines. We generally concur with ~he find/ngs relative to traffic impacts. The study indicates a projected Level of Sezvice "D" aC WAnchester Road and Ynez Road. The Southwest Area Community Plan identifies peak hour Level of Service "D" as acceptable. As such, the proposed project As consisten~ with ~his General ~lan policy. The following conditions of approval incorporate mitigation measures £den~ified in the ~raffic study which are necessary to achieve the required level of servicez e CU 3076 - Amend ~1 F(bruary 13, 1990 Page 2 This lane configuration is the minimum required to meet the General Plan requirements for this project. Coordination with other nearby projects is highly recommended to insure orderly development of areawide intersection improvements needed. m no---eea, l~ 'co any. Yn~z Read and- With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced exhibit, the Road Department recommends that applicant provide :he following street improvements, street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 4~1). It is understood that the exhibit correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with app~opriate Q'a, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitCad for further considers=ion. These Ordinances and'the following conditions are essential par~s and a requirement o~curring in ONE is as bind/ng as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe ~he 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. Prior :o lssu&n:e of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall complete the following condi~ions 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. The traffic signal mitigation has been met on this project. It was paid on Aug. 29, 1984 on underlying PM 19145. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall construct ~he following at no cost to any governmen~ agency: ¥nez Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 55 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; r~construction; or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 67 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 100A. Asphal: emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than Zour~een days ~ollowtng 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 Sta=e Standard Specifications. ¢U 30]~ - Amend tl February 13, 1990 Page 3 BIx roost wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Ynez ~ad in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 10. ~. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile ex~ending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by ~he Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenants b¥County. 11. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. 12. All work done within County right of way shall have an encroachment permit. The single driveway shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. 14. The single entrance driveway shall be channellzed with concrete curb and gutter to preyent "back-on" parklng 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 ~hts project shall be coordinated with 823-S. 16. S~reet lighting shall be required for a discretionary permit in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or no=. If not, the land owner shall file, after receiving ~entative approval, for an application wi~h LAYC0 for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 17. A s~riping plan is required for Ynez Road. The removal of the existing s~rlping shall be the responsibt1£ty applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done County forces wi~h all i~curred costs borne by the applicant. 18. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall comply wi~h Road Department s~andards and require approval by ~he Road Commiss~oner and. assurance of continuing maintenance through. the establishment of a landscape maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar February 13, 1990 Page 4 mechan/sm as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape plans tubal1 be submitted on standard County Plan 8beet format (24, x 35" ). Landscape plans shall be submitted wi~h ~he m=reet /mprovement plans and shall depict such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are ~o be placed within the public road rights-of-way. Lawrence. A. Toerper Road Divmsion Engineer Temocula Town Association March 13, 1990 Frank Alshire City Manager City Of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92350 Dear Frank: With respect to our recent telephone conversation, regarding support from the.city for our block grant application to fund expansion of the Community Center, I have enclosed a sample letter which our T.T.A. members are sending to Walt Abraham. You will probably want to re-word the city letter but the enclosure gives you the gist of what we want said. Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated. sincerely, William A. Harker General Manager WAH/kb enclosure P.O. Box 435 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-4718 Tcmccula C()nlmuniD' Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula, CA 92390 Temecula Town Association IMPORTANT Dear Friends and Users of the Community Center: The Temecula Town Association is faced with a critical need to expand the existing Community Center facility. Rapid growth in the Temecula Valley has created increasing demands for use of the Center which is now nearly booked solid 'all year 'round. As a group benefiting from use of the Center I am sure you recognize its importance to the community. An application for block grant funds to help finance an expansion of our facility is being submitted to the County of Riverside and will appear before the Board of Supervisors on May 1, 1990. A public hearing will then be held on May 8 and final approval by the board will take place May 22. We are asking your help in gaining the support of Supervisor Walt Abraham for our application when it comes up before the board. Please take the time to sign and fill in your address on the attached letter and mail it to Walt Abraham no later than April 1, 1990 to be sure he will receive it before the May 1st Board of Supervisors meeting. May we count on your help? S~b~erely' ~ r%P/~e a r~s o~n ~ President P.O. Box 435 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-4718 Tcmccula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Tcmecula, CA 92390 February 14, 1990 Hon. Walt Abraham Supervisor 1st District Community Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Walt: The Temecula Town Association is applying for a block grant funding to expand the Community Center located at 28816 Pujol Street in Temecula. The expansion will add approximately 3,000 sq. ft. to the north end of the present building next to the existing kitchen. The kitchen will be centrally located and capable of serving both wings of the facility. The balance of the remaining undeveloped property to the north will be developed into a community park. The Town Association will also be putting money into the project and the design is being donated by Ranpac Engineering Corporation of Temecula. The addition is being planned to include a Senior Citizen Center, meeting rooms, offices, and will provide an opportunity to get greater use of our kitchen facility. The expanded Community Center and park will serve the southern part of Temecula which has a large population of older people. As a member of the Town Association, this letter is being written to ask for your support when the request comes up before the Board of Supervisors for approval. Sincerely, Name Address RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION March 23,1990 Mr. Frank Aleshire Interim City Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, Ca 92390 Dear Mr. Aleshire: On behalf of the Temecula Town Association, I am requesting that the City of Temecula allocate $ 35,120 for curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the Temecula Town Association property on Pujol Street. The improvements will consist of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the east side of Pujol Street, from First Street south 760 feet to existing improvements, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the south side of First Street from Pujol east approximately 120 feet. This estimate is based on the information outlined below. Pujol Street Cost per Sq. Ft. (760 feet) Road (6 feet) $ 1.00 Curb * 9.00 Sidewalk (6'wide) 1.50 Total 4,560 6,840 6,840 Subtotal $ 18,240 First Street (120 feet) Road (6 feet) $ 1.00 $ 720 Curb * 9.00 1,080 Sidewalk 1.50 1.080 Subtotal $ 2,880 * Cost per Linear Foot 27447 Enterprise Circle West · Temecula, CA 92390 USA · TEL 714 676-7000 · FAX 714 676-8527 Frank Aleshire - page 2 Construction Engineering Survey (staking) + Fees 21,120 10,000 4,000 $ 35,120 If you have any questions or need more information, please don't hesitate to call me at 676-7000. Ver t/~ yours, RAN~~/Co rporation Douglas ~I. Burgess///~ Marketing Recovery Services March 13,1990 Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Temecula Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Frank: Pursuant to our conversation last week regarding the Substance Abuse Council's need for an additional $5,500.00, please place me on the agenda for the next city council meeting. As you probably know we've been able, through a $16,000 United Way Seed Grant, to provide programming to the Temecula School District and send twenty four community leaders through the Betty Ford Center's Pro- fessional-In-Residence program. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I look forward to meeting you. R.ocky Hill, M.~., Director ~ C.A.C. RH/ac 29373 Rancho California Rd. · Temecula, California 92390 · 714/676-3410 RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION January 23, 1990 Frank Al~hire Temecula City Manager 43172 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF TEMECULA Dear Mr. Al~hire: As promised, Ranpac has prepared a listing of roadway improvements which should alleviate some of the traffic problems within the City of Temecula. As design engineer for Assessment District 159 and Assessment District 161 totaling in excess of $200 million in bond sales for infrastructure improvements, Ranpac's staff is knowledgeable about most of the roadway improvements underway in the area. The following list represents improvements that have already been financed and that are currently being designed either by Ranpac or other firms. In addition to the improvements now under design, Ranpac is involved in the planning of additional improvements including the widening of the Winchester bridge over Interstate 15. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: Interstate 15 widening of northbound on/off ramps at Winchester Road. Improvements will be financed by Winchester Properties Assessment District (WINPAD) 161. freeway overcrossing at Overland Street. Improvements will be financed by developer (Bedford) using Mello Roos funds. widening of northbound and southbound on/off ramps at Rancho California Road. Improvements will be financed by developer (Bedford) using Mello-Roos funds. 27447 Enterprise Circle West · Temecula, CA 92390 USA · TEL 714 676-7000 · FAX 714 676-8527 PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS JANUARY 23, 1990 PAGE 2 Winchester Road - provide full roadway improvements from Ynez Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Improvements will be financed by WINPAD 161. Margarita Road - provide full roadway improvements from city limits to Winchester Road. Improvements will be financed by WINPAD 161. provide full roadway improvements from Winchester Road to approximately one- quarter mile south of Winchester Road. Improvements will be financed by WINPAD 161. provide full roadway improvements from General Kearney Road to one quarter mile north of General Kearney Road. Improvements will be financed by developer (Bedford) using Mello-Roos funds. Ynez Road provide full roadway improvements from Winchester Road to Rancho California Road. Improvements will be financed by developer (Bedford) using Mello-Roos funds. Nicolas Road provide full roadway improvements from Winchester Road to city limits. Improvements will be financed by WINPAD 161. Rancho Calif. Road provide missing roadway improvements from Interstate 15 to Margarita Road. Improvements will be financed by developer (Bedford) using Mello-Roos funds. provide full roadway improvements from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road. Improvements to be financed by developer. Kaiser Parkway- provide full roadway improvements from Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road. Improvements to be financed by developer. PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS JANUARY ~- 3, 1990 PAGE 3 Kaiser Parkway - provide full roadway improvements from Rancho Vista Road to Pauba Road. Improvements to be financed by Rancho Villages Assessment District (RVAD) 159. provide full roadway improvements from Pauba Road to State Route 79. Improvements to be financed by developer. Pauba Road provide full roadway improvements from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road. Improvements to be financed by RVAD 159. Butterfield Stage Road provide full roadway improvements from Rancho California Road to State Route 79. Improvements to be financed by RVAD 159. De Portola provide full roadway improvements from Margarita road to city limits. Improvements to be financed by RVAD 159. State Rt.79 provide full roadway improvements from Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road. Improvements to be financed by RVAD 159. Margarita Rd. - provide full roadway improvements from State Route 79 to Wolf Valley Road. Improvements to be financed by RVAD 159 Pala Road provide full roadway improvements from State Route 79 to south city limits. Improvements to be financed by developer (Merridy). provide bridge and roadway realignment at State Route 79. Improvements to be financed by developer (Merridy). Wolf Valley Road provide full street improvements from Pala Road to Wolf Valley Road loop. Improvements to be financed by RVAD 159. PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS JANUARY 23, 1990 PAGE 4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS: The following intersections, within the incorporated area, were identified as warranting traffic signals upon completion of development in the various assessment district areas. However, the cost for construction of signals was not included in assessment financing, but could be paid by County of Riverside Signal Mitigation Fees. Winchester Road at: Interstate 15 southbound on/off ramps Interstate 15 northbound on/off ramps Ynez Road Margarita Road Roripaugh Road Nicolas Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road Nicolas Road at: un-named road Butterfield Stage Road Margarita Road at Date Street extension State Route 79 at: La Paz Road Pala Road (new alignment) Margarita Road Kaiser Parkway Butterfield Stage Road Butterfield Stage Road at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road Rancho California Road Rancho Vista Road De Portola Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road An exhibit has been prepared to easily describe the proposed improvements. Ranpac staff is available at your convenience to present this information to members of the City Council, and City staff. If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 699-3972. PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS JANUARY 23, 1990 PAGE 5 Very truly yours, RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION Norman L. Thomas General Manager ¢¢: Won Yoo, President, Ranpac Engineering Chron /~/gener ! c/~ t sh ! re. cor/a: DATE: FROM= SUBJECT= CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT April 3, 1990 City Manager/City Council Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems City Hall Lease RECOMMENDATIONS: DIBCUSSION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement between the City of Temecula and Windsor Projects for a City Hall located at Windsor Park I on Business Park Drive for a period of five years. That Transition Plan II be approved by the City Council. On March 19, 1990, WestMar Commercial Brokerage, acting of behalf of Windsor Projects, presented an offer for the City to renew the lease on the existing City Hall (6,805 sqft - Building D) and execute a new lease for a 20,446 sqft building (Building C) located immediately to the rear of the existing City Hall. WestMar's offer: Building D (City Hall) Lease Period Free Rent Annual Rental Increases Rent NNN NNN/Square Foot~ Tenant Improvements 6,805 square feet 65 months First five months Five percent fixed $0.78 per sqft $0.12 - $0.14 Fully built-out Building C Lease Period Free Rent Annual Rental Increases Rent NNN NNN/Square Foot Tenant Improvements 20,446 square feet 65 months First five months Five percent fixed $0.70 per sqft $0.12 - $0.14 Fully built-out Total tenant improvement allowance: based upon $15.00 a square foot buildings are leased. $405,420, if both 30 day first right of refusal for other Windsor Park I neighboring properties (three buildings that total 44,615 square feet). TEMECULA FACILITY COMPARISONS PROJECT SITE SIZE RENT TOTAL (SOFT) NNN/CAM/EXP TI ALLOW TERM/FREE (SOFT) RENT (MO) Churchill Plaza 10,240 $1.08 $ 5.00 36/2 Churchill Plaza 8,339 $1.40 $18.00 36/2 Riverside County's Survey of Temecula N/A $1.30 - $1.50 $18.00 Variable Atrium I 11,204 $1.55 $18.00 60/5 Windsor Park III 22,800 $1.65 $18.00 60/5 Plaza Tower 18,000 $2.08 - $2.20 $18.00 60/5 Windsor Park I Building C 20,446 $0.84 $15.00 65/5 Windsor Park I Building D 6,805 $0.92 $15.00 65/5