HomeMy WebLinkAbout062894 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER - 30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD
JUNE 28, 1994 - 7:00 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:30:.PM, 'Closed .SesSionof.the. City .Council .pursuant to:
1. 'Government Code '§54957..6, Conference:with. Labor Negotiator, ·Agency
negotiators: Harwood Edvalson and .Gent Yates - Employee organization:
Teamsters Local 91.1, representing ·General and ProfesSional/Confidential
employee groups; ..... 'i" ..... .. "": '
2. Government COde §'54956.9(a) - ConferenCe with. legalC0Unsel .- Tort'Claims:
· Miller 'vS'CityOf Temecula~ :" .:....: :....::...::" ":'....:.: ':::;'::.: :.: :"
3. Government Code §54956.9(a)- Conferencewith:legal CounSel -.existing
· · .litlgation,.Dawes vs the'TemeCula RedeVdopment'Agen~/; et :al..and, · ·
41 ..Government Code"§54959:.9(b)-:Conference.with'legal.:CoUnsel ·regarding
.potential.litigation(two matters), .: .:....:...: ...:.:.:.. .' .'.":'.:: ..'.....:..: ':.. :' .' .
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining
agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may
continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 94-18
Resolution: No. 94-62
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Ron Roberrs presiding
Invocation;
Pastor Tim Riter, Rancho Christian Church
Flag Salute:
Councilmember Mu~oz
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberts
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Presentation of I~eative Kids Poster Contest Winners
Proclamation - Arts Appreciation Week
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on
items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited
to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item ngt listed on the
Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the City Clerk.
R:~eertde%062694 1
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
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.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at
this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members
of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate action.
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of June 14, 1994.
3
Resolution Aoorovina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4
5
6
7
US Treasury Resolution for Old Town Entertainment Center Preliminary Studies
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING
INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF
OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS
SB 2557 AQreement (BookinQ Fees)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the settlement agreement with Riverside County concerning SB 2557
booking fees;
5.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
5.3 Transfer $84,324to Account No. 001-170-999-5273from Account No. 001-170~
999-5288.
Resolution EstablishinQ Gann Aooroorietion Limit for FY 1994-95
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 1994-95
Contract Amendment No. I to Moraoa Road Street Widenine - PW 92-10. EnQineerino
Services Contract with NBS Lowry, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve Contract Amendment No. I to provide additional engineering services for
Moraga Road Street Widening by NBS Lowry, Inc. for the outlet structure redesign
in the amount of $7,000.00.
8
"NO Parkine" Zone to Facilitate Emeroencv Vehicle Access on Villa Alturas. Loma Portola
Drive. Santo Suzanne Place, Mira Loma Drive and La Primavera Street Adjacent to ExistinQ
Medians
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94°
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING" ZONES ON VILLA ALTURAS, LOMA PORTOLA
DRIVE, SANTA SUZANNE PLACE, MIRA LOMA AND LA PRIMAVERA STREET AS
SHOWN ON EXHIBITS "B" THROUGH "1"
9
Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in
Tract No. 22716-2
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Accept the substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders to Faithful
Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer
Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-2,
and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
10
Substitute Subdivision Imorovement Aareement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in
Tract No. 22716-4
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Riders to Faithful
Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer
improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-4,
and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
11
Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aareement and Public Imorovement Bond Riders in
Tract No. 22716-F
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Riders to Faithful
Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer
Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentorion Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-F,
and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
12 Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public
Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-1
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Authorize a sixty-five (65) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water
and Sewer Improvement Bond Amounts, Accept the Substitute Subdivision
Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-
1, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
13
Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public
Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-F
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Authorize a seventy-five (75) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street,
Water and Sewer Improvement Bond amounts; Accept the Substitute Subdivision
Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-F
and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
14
Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aqreement and Public
Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Authorize a fifty (50) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street, Water and
Sewer Improvement bond amounts, accept the Substitute Subdivision improvement
Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1, and Direct
the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
15 Ordinance No. 94-16
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING
CHAPTER 9.10 'SPECIAL LICENSES--BARS, NIGHT CLUBS, DANCE HALLS,
POOLROOMS, ETC.,' TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
16
Ordinance No. 94-17
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 10.20 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD WEIGHT LIMITS
ON DESIGNATED STREETS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
17
Aooeal of Plannine Apolication Nos. 93-0157 and 94-0002 (Temecule Valley Unified
School District Maintenance, Ooeretion and Transportation Facility and Associated
Environmental Imoact Report
(Continued from the meeting of June 14, 1994)
An appeal, filed by Councilmember Mu~oz, of the decision of the Temecula Planning
Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit for property located North of Winchester
Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0002),
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST OF THE
EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'$ PARCEL NO. 911-
180-024
17.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
18
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 93-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND
MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Plannine AoDlication No. PA 93-0191. Skateboard Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING, OR SIMILAR
ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS
19
AoDeal of the PlanninQ Commission Denial of Plannino APPlication No. PA94-0019, PlOt
Plan for the Black Anaus Restaurant
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for PA94-0019;
19.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019-APPEAL, REVERSING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,200
SQUARE FOOT RESTUARANT ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED
ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-270-047
20
Master Conditional Use Permit
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING
ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
APPROVAL OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
COUNCIL BUSINESS
21
Plannino AoDlication No. 94-0035 - ADoeel of Plannine Commission Aooroval of a Thirty
(30) Foot HiQh Freeway Oriented SiQn for the Ynez Car Care Center
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 - APPEAL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONS DECISION TO APPROVE A THIRTY (30| FOOT HIGH, ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET IN AREA FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGN
LOCATED AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921-720-008
22
ADoroval of Election Resolutions
RECOMMENDATIONS:
22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO
CONDUCT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 8, 1994
22.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING
AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN
OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES
23
24
25
26
Re-adootion of Curfew Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING
CHAPTER 9.12 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS
Karl S. Hennine ProPertY - 28613 Puiol Street, Temecula, California
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1
Set a date, time and place of July 26, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., at 30875 Rancho Vista
Road, for the purpose of conducting a Public Hearing to confirm the cost of
nuisance abatement for property located at 28613 Pujol Street, and to cause that
cost to be recorded against the property as a special assessment.
Revised Solid Waste Rates for FY 1994-95
RECOMMENDATION:
25.1 Receive and file the revised solid waste rates for single family, multi-family, and
commercial refuse and recycling services in the City of Temecula.
Consideration of Proposed Advisory Ballot Measures for the November 1994 Election
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mu~oz)
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: July 12, 1994, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho
Vista Road, Temecula, California.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT' MEETING - '(To bee held at. 8:00)..
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mur~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone
PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a
completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come
forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 MinUte~;
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 14, 1994.
2 TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts - FY 1994-95
RECOMMENDATION:
2~1 Approve purchase order of 9184,851 to California Landscape Company to provide
median and park maintenance services for FY 1994-95;
2.2 Approve purchase order of $305,664to Excel Landscape to provide slope and park
maintenance services for FY 1994-95.
Muni Financial Services Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve contract with Muni Financial Services to provide assessment administration
services related to the TCSD Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
4
Release of Bond for Kent Hinteroardt Memorial Park
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Authorize the release of Labor and Materials Bond for the construction of Kent
Hintergardt Memorial Park.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting July 12, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT 'AGENCY.MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding
ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mufioz, Roberrs, Stone, Parks
PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
AGENCY BUSINESS
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 14, 1994.
2 Review and Aooroval of the Fiscal Year 1994-95 Budaet
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 FOR
THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR°S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting: July 12, 1 ~j94, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
PROCLAMATIONS/
PRESENTATIONS
The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
V~S, the purpose of the Temecula Arts Council is to stimulate the growth of
visual and performing arts wiffiin the community; and
WlfF. REAS, the Arts Council is further dedicated to the promotion and facilitation of
education relative to ~e arts; and
WltEREAS, a further goal is to assist individual artists and art organiTations and to
create a network for coordination and sharing of resources; and
WHEREAS, the Temecula Arts Council desires to encourage construction of facilities
to house and enhance performing arts;
Wltl;IREAS, the Arts Council will sponsor the Fourth Annual Arts Festival this year
beginning June 25, 1994, featuring art displays including a children's Art-in-the-Park exhibit,
Arts and Crafts shows, singers, dancers and instrumental performances, culminating wiffi a talent
showcase on Sunday, July 3, 1994,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ron Roberts, on behalf of the City Council of the City of
Temecula, hereby proclaim the week of June 261h, 1994, to be
"Arts Appreciation Week"
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 281h day of June, 1994.
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD JUNE 14, 1994
A regular meeting of the Temecule City Council was called to order at 5:36 PM at the
Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Street, Temacula, California. Mayor Ron
Roberrs presiding.
PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Stone,
Robarts
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
Also present were City Manager Ronald Bradley, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk
June S. Greek.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Muf~oz to adjourn to
Executive Session at 5:37 PMpursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, CONFERENCE WITH
LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Agency negotiators: Harwood Edvalson and Grant Yates - Employee
organization: Teamsters Local 911, representing General and Professional/Confidential
employee groups, Government Code § 54959.9(b)regarding potential litigation, and §54956.9
Tort Claims: Miller, Charles & Sharon vs. the City of Temecula. The motion was
unanimously carried.
Mayor Roberts reconvened the City Council meeting in regular session at 7:12 PM.
City Manager Bradley reported that negotiations regarding all closed session matters were
ongoing and will be continued to the next City Council Closed Session.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Gary Nelson, Calvary Chapel of Temecula.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Roberts gave a tribute to "Flag Day" and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Robarts presented Dave Stovall, President of the CRC Building Foundation a
proclamation read at the "Taste of the Valley" on June 10, 1994 for "CRC Foundation Day."
Mr. Stovall thanked the City for their efforts.
Minutee%6~14\94 -1- 06/21/94
Cit~ Council Minutes June 14, 1993
Mayor Roberrs introduced Motor Officer Mike Pino who presented the Bicycle Safety Essay
Contest Winners with awards. Winners of the contest are as follows:
6th Grade Girls
I st- Vickie Portillo, Margarita Middle School
2nd - Christina Serna, Temecula Middle School
3rd - Holly Hudson, Margarita Middle School
6th Grade Boys
I st - Jonathan Jacobsen, Margarita Middle School
2nd - Peter Mostert, Margarita Middle School
3rd - Adam Forrest, Temecula Middle School
7th Grade Girls
I st -Bryna Bunderson, Temecula Middle School
2nd - Nicole Fox, Lindfield School
3rd - Suzana Malek, Temecula Middle School
7th Grade Boys
I st- Devin Kelly, Lindfield School
2nd - Jerod EIder, Temecula Middle School
3rd - Ryan Kane, Linfield School
Mayor Roberts presented Mark Katan, Target Stores, with a certificate of appreciation for his
donation of bicycles for the first place contest winners in the Bicycle Safety Essay Contest.
Mayor Roberts announced that Public Hearing Item No. 22 would be continued to the meeting
of June 28, 1994, since only two members of the Council would be able to vote on this issue.
He further stated Public Hearing No. 28 would be continued to the meeting of July 12, 1994,
honoring the request for continuance from the applicant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Frank Spencer, 28690 Front Street, President of the Old Town Main Street Foundation, read
a letter requesting the immediate implement ofthe Main Street Program. He thanked members
of the Council and staff for their efforts toward this program.
Bonnie Reed, 42050 Main Street, presented a letter to the City Clerk containing the signatures
of 56 business owners in Old Town who support the immediate implementation of the Main
Street Program.
Minutes%6%14%94 -2- 06/21/94
City Council Minutes June 14. 1993
Karel Lindemans, 42740 Las Violetas, asked that the Council research the financial aspects
of Assessment Districts 159 and 161. He also asked that the City pursue funds collected by
the State under Proposition 111. Lastly, he asked that certain City streets be re-paved.
Nick Vultaggio, 39813 Creative Drive, stated he received a public hearing notice from the
County regarding AD 161, scheduled on July 19th and 26th at 10:00 AM. He asked the
Council's assistance in requesting that the County of Riverside hold public hearings regarding
Assessment District 161 in Temecula and at a time when residents are able to attend.
Mayor Pro Tern Stone asked that staff assist in this effort. City Manager Bradley stated it is
his experience that County Agencies do try to accommodate the residents and said staff will
draft a letter requesting the County hold AD 161 Public Hearings in Temecula, not Riverside.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked that the Council send letters to local representatives to support
State Assembly Bill 3797, which gives cities the legal right to control the curfew issue and
asked the status of the City's curfew ordinance. City Clerk June Greek reported that curfew
section was inadvertently removed from the Municipal Code when it was being codified and
staff will bring this section back for adoption.
Mayor Pro Tem stone stated he is concerned about unlicensed vendors in the City and asked
that this be addressed possibly by allocating more hours toward code enforcement on an "on-
call" basis.
Councilmember Mu~oz stated he at'tended a conference of the National Civic League and
shared ideas presented by cities who have receivied the "All American City" award.
Councilmember Parks stated that a meeting of WRCOG will be held on June 23rd from 12:00
Noon to 5:00 PM, with the business meeting being held at 1:30 PM.
CONSENTCALENDAR
Mayor Pro Tem Stone requested the removal of Item No. 6 from the Consent Calendar, and
announced he would abstain on Item 2.1, since he did not attend that meeting, and Item No.
16 due to the close proximity of his home to the project.
Councilmember Parks stated he would abstain on Items 10 and 11 due to the close proximity
of his home.
Mayor Roberts commented on Item 17, praising the Department of Public Works for bringing
this contract in under engineering estimates.
Minutes\6~l 4\94 -3- 0612 1/94
City Council Minutes June 14, 1993
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1-5 end 7-20, with Mayor Pro Tam abstaining on Items 2.1 and 16,
and Councilmember Parks abstaining on Items 10 and 11.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
1.1
Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of May 10, 1994; Mayor Pro Tam Stone abstained.
2.2 Approve the minutes of May 23° 1994;
2.3 Approve the minutes of May 24, 1994.
Resolution ADorovinQ List of Demands
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
City Treasurer's Reoort
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of April 30, 1994.
Records Destruction Reouest
5.1 . Approve scheduled destruction of certain records as provided under the City of
Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
Minufee%6~l 4%94 -,4- 06121/94
City Council Minutes
7.
10.
June 14, 1993
ADorooriation of Funds Within the Insurance Internal Service Fund
7.1 Approve appropriation of funds as follows:
Property Insurance $ 5,000
Claims Examiner $ 6,500
Claims $69,000
Other Outside Services $ 2,300
Contract Chanoe Order Nos. 12 throueh 14 for the Liefar Road BridQe and Street
ImProvements, Project No. PW93-02
8.1
8.2
Approve the final Contract Change Orders Nos. 12 through No. 14 for Liefar
Road Bridge and Street Improvements Project, PW 93-02, pertaining to labor
and equipment for various items of work, in the amount of $16,655.40.
Approve an advance from the Development Impact Fund of $2,450.96to the
Capital Projects Fund.
Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement bond Riders
in Tract No. 22916-F
9.1
Accept the Substitute Subdivision improvement Agreement and riders for
Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and
Sewer Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No.
22916-F, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
Final Parcel MaD No. 25538 - Southeastern Terminus of Estero Street
10.1
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Approve Final Parcel Map No. 25538, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufloz, Stone, Robarts
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
Minutes\6\14%94 -5- 06/21/94
Ciw Cot(nell Minutes
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
June 14,1993
Final Parcel MaD NO. 24633 - Northeast Corner of Estero Street and Ormsbv Road
Approve Final Parcel Map No. 24633, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Stone, Roberrs
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
11.1
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Imorovement Aoreement and New Public
Imerovement Bonds in Tract No. 22915-2
12.1
Authorize a sixty-five (65) percent reduction in Faithful Performance, Street,
Water and Sewer improvement bond amounts, accept the substitute Subdivision
Improvement Agreement and new Public Improvement Bonds in Tract No.
22915-2 and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
Substitute Subdivision Improvement Aoreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders
in Tract No. 22916-2
13.1
Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Riders to Faithful
Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water and Sewer
Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Riders in Tract No.
22916-2, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Imorovement Aareement and New Public
Imerovement Bonds in Tract No. 22915-3
14.1
Authorize a fifty-three (53) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street,
Water and Sewer Improvement Bond Amounts, accept the Substitute
Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bonds in Tract
NO. 22915-3and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement end Replacement Public Imorovement
Bonds in Tract No. 22916-3
15.1
Accept Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Replacement of
Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street and Water Sewer
Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond in Tract No. 22916-3and
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
Minutes~6~l 4~94 -6- 06/21/94
CiWCouncilMinutes
16.
17.
18.
June 14. 1993
Award Bid to Remove Three Desiltina Ponds Alona with Debris and Sediment in the
Santiaao Channel from Valleio Avenue to John Wamer Road
16.1 Award a bid for removal of sediment of three (3) desilting ponds in Santiago
Channel to Moody Excavating, the lowest responsible bidder, for the sum of
$18,534.34.
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
Comoletion and Acceotance of the Puiol Street and First Street Widenina. oroiect NO,
PW92-09
17.1 Accept the Pujol St. and First St. Widening Project No. PW92-09, as complete
and direct the City Clerk to:
File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept
a one (1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing
of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed.
Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Installation of Traffic Sional and Vehicle Pre-
emotion Eouioment, Project No, PW 94-05
18.1
Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the public
Works Department to solicit public construction bids for providing and installing
Traffic Signal pre-emption equipment at the intersections of Rancho California
Road and Front Street, Rancho California Road and Diaz Road, Margarita Road
and Rancho Vista Road, Margarita Road and Moraga Road, and the providing
and installing of Vehicle Pre-Emption equipment on nine (9) Fire Department
vehicles. project NO. PW94-05.
19. Contract for Professional Services with C.M. "Max" Gilliss
19.1
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Professional Services Agreement
with C.M. "Max" Gilliss to act as a liaison between the City and Government
Agencies and special interest groups for an amount not to exceed 98,400.
Minutes%6%14%94 -7- 06121/94
City Council Minutes June 14, 1993
20.
Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Construction of a TemDorarv Traffic Sional at
Winchester and Nicolas RoBds. Proiect No. PW93-11
20.1
Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Public
Works Department to solicit public construction bids for the construction of a
temporary traffic signal on Winchester and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-
11.
Capital Improvement Project - Rancho California Sports Park Desiltation Lake
Improvement Project
Mayor Pro Tam Stone asked if the City will be able to find the balance of the funding
to complete this project. Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson stated that
this study is required by the State to move forward and with use of the $100,000
grant from URGE and the CIP, the first phase of improvements should be able to be
completed.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
6.1
Approve Amendment No. 1 for $12,000 to the design contract with J.F.
Davidson Associates, Inc. for preparation of a biological study and analysis.
6.2
Appropriate $12,000 to Capital Projects Account No. 210-190-138-5802and
approve an operating transfer from Development Impact Fund of $12,000,
establishing the Rancho California Desiltation Lake Improvement Project.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberts
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
REC:ESS
Mayor Robarts called a recess at 8:09 PM.
Mayor Roberts reconvened the City Council Meeting in joint session with the Redevelopment
Agency at 9:23 PM.
Minutes%6%14~94 -8- O6121/94
City Council Minutes June 14. 1993
26.
International Rectifier Owner Particioation Aoreement
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to
approve staff recommendation prior to RDA action as follows:
26.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND B~EENTHE
CITY OF TEMECULA AND INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION
The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent.
RECESS
Mayor Roberts recessed the City Council meeting at 9:25. The meeting was reconvened at
9:32 PM.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
21.
Chanoe of Zone No. 5570-Johnson + Johnson - a reouest for the Redesionation of
Three Parcels from R-A-5 (Residential Aoricultural. 5 acre minimum parcel size) to R-3
(General Residential) and C-0 (Commercial Office)
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Robarts opened the public hearing at 9:36 PM.
Karel Lindemans, 42740 Las Violetas, speaking on behalf of the Rancho Community
Home Owners Association, spoke in favor of staff recommendation for denial.
Lena Seeman, 42700 Las Violetas Ct., spoke in favor of staff recommendation for
denial.
Mayor Robarts closed the public hearing at 9:43 PM.
Minutee~6~l 4~94 -9- 06/21 j94
Citv CouncilMinutes June 14, 1993
22.
It was moved by Councilmember Mufloz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone to
approve staff recommendation.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked that the motion be amended to remove the language
"without prejudice" in the resolution.
Councilmember Mur~oz amended his motion, Mayor Pro Tem amended his second to
approve staff recommendation with the amendment to remove the language "without
prejudice" in the resolution and the title as follows:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5570 - A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONE ON THREE
PARCELS FROM R-A-S (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 5 ACRE MINIMUM
PARCEL SIZE) TO C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) ON PARCELS NO. I AND 3 AND
FROM R-A-5 TO R-3 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL) ON PARCEL NO. 2 ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF RANCHO VISTA
AND YNEZ ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 944-
290-015, 944-290-016, AND 944-290-017
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
Aooeal of Plannine ADolication Nos, 93-0157 and 94-0002 (Temecula Valley Unified
School District Maintenance, Operation and Transoortation Facility and Associated
Environmental Impact Report
Mayor Roberts opened the public hearing at 9:45 PM.
Mayor Roberrs continued the public hearing to the meeting of June 28, 1994.
23. Lease Aareement with the Temecula Valtev Historical Museum Foundation
Mayor Roberrs opened the public hearing at 9:47 PM.
Mayor Roberrs continued the public hearing to the meeting of July 12, 1994.
Minutee\6~l 4~94 -1 O- 06121
City Council Minutes June 14. 1993
COUNCIL BUSINESS
24. Entertainment Licensing Ordinance
City Attorney Peter Thorson presented the staff report and recommended the addition
of Section 9.10.090 providing that the Chief of Police may approve the license re-issue
annually.
It was moved by Councilmember Muf~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to
approve staff recommendation with the addition of Section 9.10.090 which provides
language approved by the City Attorney permitting the Chief of Police to approve the
license re-issue annually.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall'
25.
Extension of Time for Variance No, 10 - a Fifty-Five (55) Foot Hicih Freeway Oriented
Sian for Creekside Texaco
Director of Planning Thornhill reported the applicant has requested this matter be
continued.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked the reasoning behind this request. Director of Planning
Thornhill explained that a memo sent to the applicant supports the applicant's request
and the applicant feels he has not had adequate notice of the meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks to continue the item. The motion died for a
lack of a second.
Lou Kashmere, 24115 Front Street, stated there is a conflict between the agreement
he signed, a letter sent by staff and the understanding he had from the Council meeting
when the Variance was granted. He asked, since no complaints have been received
regarding his sign, that the variance be extended.
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to extend
the meeting until 10:45 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember
Birdsall absent.
Councilmember Mu~ioz voiced his objection to granting a further variance, stating that
Mr. Kashmere signed an agreement to voluntarily lower his currant sign by 10 feet at
the end of a two year period.
Minutes~6~14~94 -11- 06121/94
CiW Council Minutes June 14, 1993
Mayor Pro Tam Stone said he does not want to set a precedence for future projects by
extending the variance.
Councilmember Parks stated the purpose for a variance is to consider individual cases
and stated he does not have · problem with this sign.
Mayor Roberrs said that because this property's elevation is at a lower level than
surrounding properties, the sign is barely visable from the freeway and stated he feels
the variance should be extended.
Mayor Roberts called a recess at 10:26 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened
at 10:27 PM.
27.
Councilmember Parks moved the Temporary Variance be continued for 30 days. The
motion died for a lack of a second.
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to enforce
the terms of the agreement and to require the applicant to bring the sign into
compliance with the height requirements.
Mayor Pro Tam Stone asked the motion be amended to allow Mr. Kashmere a six
month period of time to show if any substantial loss of business occurs and the Council
would re-evaulats the sign at that time.
Councilmember Mu~oz did not agree to the amendment.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz, Stone
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Robarts
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
City Attorney Thorson advised the Council that the agreement provisions would be
enforced by virtue of the time extension having expired and the fact that action to
extend the variance did not carry.
Financing and Construction Aareement Reaardina the Widenino of Maroarita Road
Between Rancho California Road and La Serene Way
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet presented the staff report.
Councilmember Mu~oz stepped down from the podlure due to · conflict of interest.
Minutee%6~l 4\94 -12- 06121/94
City Council Minutes June 14. 1993
28.
29.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Stone to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
27.1
27.2
27.3
Approve the agreement with Margarita Village Retirement Community, Inc.
providing for the financing and construction of the East side of Margarita
between Rancho California Road and Le Serene Way to ultimate width, and
authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
Appropriate $168,517 in the Margarita Road Reimbursement District Fund
Account No. 220-165-610-5804;
Approve a $168,517 advance from the Development Impact Fund to the
Margarita Road Reimbursement District Fund.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
City ManaQer's Contract
Mayor Roberrs presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to
approve the City Manager's employment contract and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the agreement. The motion was unanimously carried with
Councilmember Birdsall absent.
Ordinance RestrictinQ Trucks Over Six Thousand (6,000) Pounds on Rainbow Canyon
Road from Pale Road to the Southern City Limit
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet presented the staff report.
Minutes%6%14%94 -13- 06121/94
City Council Minutes June 14, 1993
It was moved by Councilmember Muf~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
29.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 10.20 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
WEIGHT LIMITS ON DESIGNATED STREETS
The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to adjourn at
10:40 PM to a meeting on June 28, 1994, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with
Councilmember Birdsall absent.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Minutel~6~l 4~94 -14- O6/21/94
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXIIIRIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been
audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the mount of
$555,672.77.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 281h day of June, 1994.
ATI~,ST:
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Re~oa 15 I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 28th day of June, 1994 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NOES: 0
COUNCILlVIEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Resos 25 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
06109194 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
06/16/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
06/18/94 TOTAL PAYROL~
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 06/28/94 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
$110,790,16
TOTAL BY FUND: 15ss,672.77
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGr
06/09/94 13:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REG%STER
FOR ALL PER%OUS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
19] TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
250 CAPITAL PROJECTS - TCSD
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
]00 INSURANCE FUND
]10 VEHICLES FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 COPY CENTER FUND
340 FACILITIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
12,201.57
3,598.7'5
9,572.88
122.33
12.52
1,028.61
548.35
256.63
297.82
954.33
720.99
1,480.75
604.61
35,814.85
VOUCW
06/0
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
15324
15324
15326
15327
15334
15334
15334
15335
15336
15337
15337
15337
15338
153~
1533,
15339
15340
15340
15341
15341
15341
15342
15342
15343
15344
15344
15345
15346
15347
15347
15348
15348
15~
13:44
CHECK
DATE
06/03/94
06/03/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIORS
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
001480 PRESLEY COMPANIES, THE
001480 PRESLEY COMPANIES, THE
000120 BICKNELL TRAVEL CENTER
000418 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK
001391 ADOLPH KIEFER & ASSOCIA
001391 ADOLPH KIEFER & ASSOCIA
001391 ADOLPH KIEFER & AGGOCIA
000105 AEI SECURITY, INC.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
REIMB WATER USEAGE/PARK
REIMB WATER USEAGE/PARK
AIRFARE/RUSE & NUNOZ
FILING FEE/BURN ON PARK
AOUATIC SUPPLIES
FREIGHT
TAX
ALARM MONITOR/NG
TCBD REFUND/ALLEN
000110
000110
000110
000102
000102
000101
000101
000370
000370
000131
000131
000131
000138
000138
000980
001193
0011~3
001275
001481
000165
000165
000643
000~3
000170
ALLEN, JANET
AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE A001; FULL CUT POSTAGE
AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE FREIGHT
AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE TAX
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
193-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5258
190-180-999-5301
190-183-999-5310
190-18~-999-5310
190-183-999-5310
340-199-999-5250
190-183-4982
330-199-999-5230
330-199-999-5230
330-199-999-5230
AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C TEMPORARY FENCE RENTAL 190-180-999-5238
AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C FENCE REPAIR 100-164-999-5402
APPLE ONE SBL LIASON W/E 05/21/94 280-199-999-5250
APPLE ONE SBL LIASON W/E 05/28/94 280-199-999-5250
BIRDSALL# PATRICIA 4/12-4/17 LEAGUE 190-180-999-5258
BIRDSALL, PATRICIA 4/12-4/17 LEAGUE 001-100-999-5258
CARL WARREN & CO., INC. MITTLENAN J/DOL 8/19/94 300-199-999-5205
CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
CARL WARREN & CO,, INC.
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
COAST IRRIGATION SUPPLY
CONP USA, INC.
COMP USA, ]NC.
CUMPUSERV, INC.
ELECTR[ CIT]
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FORTNER HARDWARE
FORTNER HARDWARE
FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY
SO CAL GAS/DOL 2/10/93 300-199-999-5205
TESSIER/2OTH CEN/DOL 6/300-199-999-5205
PHORE SYSTEM LEASE
PHONE SYSTEM LEASE
IRRIGATION PARTS
NETWORK INTERFACE CARD
NETWORK INTERFACE CARD
MAY USAGE
320-2800
320-199-999-5391
190-180-999-5212
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5228
INTERNET CONNECT SOFTWA 320-199-999-5221
OVERNIGHT NAIL
OVERNIGHT NAIL
MISC, SUPPLIES
MlSC TOOLS FOR PW DEPT
001-140-999-5230
190-180-999-5230
190-180-9q9-5212
100-164-999-5242
REFILL/LINED WHITE PAGE 001-161-999-5220
ITEM
AMOUNT
854.91
501.58
150.00
78.00
150.00
9.08
.01
105.00
35.00
104.00
5,74
8.06
550.00
325.00
103,20
103.20
139.67
139.04
460.65
161.88
319.38
1,166.69
260.88
87.47
485.73
477.23-
38.15
220.50
19.00
9.50
28.49
6.02
55.33
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,356.49
150.00
78.00
159.09
105.00
35.00
117.80
875. O0
ZOO.40
278.71
941.91
1,427.57
87.47
8.50
38.15
220.50
28.50
34.51
55,33
VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TENECULA PAE' ~
06/09/94 13:~J~. VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUHBER DATE NUMBER
15350 06/09/94
15351 06/09/94
15351 06/09/94
15351 06/09/94
15352 06/09/94
VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NAME DESCR;PTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC.
00116/+ GABRIEL, RICHARD
001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD
00116/+ GABRIEL, RICHARD
NISC. COFFEE SUPPLIES
LEASE AGREENENT WITH/CI
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH/CI
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH/CI
000481 GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONN SPORTS PARK SLOPE REPAI
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 00017'7
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 00017'7
15353 06/09/94 00017'/
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 00017'/
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 000177
15353 06/09/94 00017'/
15353 06/09/94 00017/
15354 06/09/94
15354 06/09/94
340-199-999-5250
310-16~-999-5234
310-180-999-5234
310-162-999-5234
210-166-648-5804
GLENNiES OFFICE PRODUCT DFX*8000 EPSON OEM R]BB 320-199-999-5221
GLENN[ES OFFICE PRODUCT ALQ-300 ALPS OEN RIBBON 320-199-999-5221
GLENNlEG OFFICE PRODUCT TAX 320-199-999-5221
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 4 COLOR FABRIC RIBBON 320-199-999-5221
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 4 COLOR FABR]C RIBBON 320-199-999-5221
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT GUEST BOOK 001-110-999-5220
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-140-999-5220
GLENNiES OFFICE PRORUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220
GLENNIES OFFICE PRORUCT STORAGE CAB/NET (HON-SC 190~180-999-5220
GLENNlEG OFFICE PRORUCT TAX
GLENNlEG OFFICE PRODUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
GLENNIES OFFICE PRQOUCT MIGC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
GLENHIES OFFICE PRGOUCT RETURN RIBBON# FABRIC
GLENNlEG OFFICE PRORUCT RETURNED PLAGUE
GLENNlEG OFFICE PRORUCT MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T STAFF UNIFORM SHIRTS
001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T TAX
15355 06/09/94 001355 GTE CALIFORNIA I(~y CNGS
15356 06/09/94
15356 06/09/94
15356 06/09/94
190-180-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
320-199-999-5221
190-180-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
000184 GTE CALIFORNIA ]NCORPOR 909-695-3539
000184 GTE CALIFORNIA INCORPOR 909-699-2309
000184 GTE CALIFORNIA [NCORPOR 909-699-0128
190-180-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
320-199-999-5208
15357 06/09/94 0001~ HANKS HARDWARE
15357 06/09/94 000186 HANKS HARDWARE
15357 06/09/94 000186 HANKS HARDWARE
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5301
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT 190-180-999-5212
MISC. NARDWARE SUPPLIES 340-199-999-5242
15358 06/09/94 HEROLD, PAUL N, BL DENIED/HEROLD, PAUL 001-199-4056
15359 06/09/94
15359 06/09/94
15359 06/09/94
001343 HOWE WELDING & FABRICAT FABRICAT[ON OF 3 42I' X
001343 HONE WELDING & FABRICAT FIELD INSTALLATION OF
001343 HO~E WELDING & FABRICAT TAX
15360 06/09/94 000193 [CHA
15361 06/09/94
15361 06/09/94
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-521Z
[CMA STRATEGIC BUDGETIN 001-140-999-5228
001429 INACUM INFORR~TION SYST NETHORK ENGINEER SUPMR 320-199-~-5250
001429 INACOR INFORMATION SYBT NETW(~K ENGINEER SUPPOR 320-199-999-5250
141.83
350.00
245.00
105.00
204.00
299.40
77,70
29.23
55.81
27.91
24,01
153.15
130,02
46.58
268.40
20.80
44.18
14.01
83.72-
33.29-
77.48-
510.00
39,53
350,00
20.01
17.29
290.33
169.68
203.51
20.44
35.00
438.00
148.00
33.94
15.45
500.00
246.17
141.83
700,00
204.00
549.53
350.00
327.63
393.63
35.00
619.94
15.45
746.17
15362 06/09/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL NISC. POUL SLIPPLIES 190-180-~-5212 268.84
15362 06/09/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL NISC. POUL SUPPLIES 190-180-~-5212 2]7.05 505.~,
VOUCF CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
06/0 13:44 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
RUMBER
15363
15363
15364
15364
15364
15365
15366
15367
15368
15369
15370
15371
15:
15373
15374
15375
15375
15375
15375
15375
15375
15375
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15376
15'
CHECK
DATE
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
)6/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
~6/09/94
VENDOR
NUMBER
000204
000204
000206
000206
000206
000209
000210
VENDOR ZTEM ACCCUNT ITEM
NAME DESCRIPT/OR NUMBER AMOUNT
J.R. FREEMAN CO, INC.
J.R. FREEMAN CO, INC.
KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE,
KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE,
KINKO'S OF RIVERSIDE,
L & M FERTILIZER, INC.
LEAGUE OF CALIF.CITIES
MAIETTA~ RAYMOND
001030 MINI-GRAPHIC SYSTEMS,
IBM UHEELURITER 1500
TAX
001-171-999-5602
001-171-999-5602
B&S COPIES 001-162-999-5220
TCSD COPIES 190-180-999-5220
MISC. SUPPLIES & SERVIC 330-199-999-5220
MISC HARDHARE
100-164-999-5402
ART XIIIB APPROP LIMIT 001-140-999-5228
CANCELLED RN REFUND/MAI 190-18]-4990
APERTURE CARD/~31,N IMAG 001-120-999-5250
000437 MORELAND &ASSOC]ATES TOT REVIEW
000587 MUNOZ, MARIO N.
001447 NETWARE USERS INTERNATI
0002:39 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC
001206 PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLO
000248 PETROLANE
000249 PETTY CASH
000249 PETTY CASH
000249 PETTY CASH
000249 PETTY CASH
000249 PETTY CASH
000249 PETTY CASH
000249 PETTY CASH
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
000253 POSTMASTER
001-140-999-52~8
JANITORIAL SERVICES 190-181-999-5250
NETWARE USER CONFERENCE 320-199-999-5258
TEMPORARY SERVICES/OLST 001-162-999-5118
GNATCATCHER SURVEY 210-199-128-5802
PROPANE 190-180-999-5263
CASH REIMBURSEMENT
CASH REIMBURSEMENT
CASH REIMBURSEMENT
CASH REIMBURSEMENT
CASH REIMBURSEMENT
CASH REIMBURSEMENT
CASH REIMBURSEMENT
190-183-999-5310
190-180-999-5301
001-140-999-5220
001-161-9q9-5260
001-163-999-5260
320-199-999-5220
320-199-999-5226
OVERNZGHT MAIL
OVERNIGHT MAIL
OVERNIGHT NAIL
OVERNIGHT MAiL
OVERNIGHT MAIL
EXPRESS MAIL
EXPRESS MAIL
EXPRESS MAIL
EXPRESS MAIL
CREDIT
CREDIT
CREDIT
CREDIT
CREDIT
CREDIT
001-120-999-52~0
001-16~-999-52~0
001-161-999-5230
001-140-999-5230
190-180-999-52~0
001-161-999-52~0
O01-1ZO-999-5Z30
001-140-999-52]0
001-150-999-5Z30
001-150-999-5230
001-161-999-5230
330-199-999-5230
001-110-999-57,30
001-120-999-5~0
001-163-999-5230
525.00
40.69
26.88
24.7'5
42.88
69.89
22.50
15.00
549.36
700.99
200.00
390.00
468.00
103.84
98.07
2~.71
38.09
22.66
15.41
34.76
40.00
19.90
19.90
61.75
13.95
13.95
79.70
47.80
9.95
11,50
19.90-
29,85 o
9.95-
9.95-
19.90-
9.95-
CHECK
AMOUNT
565.69
94.49
69.89
22.50
15.00
549.36
700.99
200.00
390.00
468.00
3/,4.35
103.84
272.70
178.90
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGr
06/09/94 13:~ VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR /TEH ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUHBER MANE DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
15377 06/09/94 001416 QUICK CRETE PROOUCTS, I ASH URN NODEL tQR-SF132
15377 06/09/94 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS# I SILICA SAND
15377 06/09/94 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS, I TAX
190-180-~99-52/.2
190-180-999-5242
190-180-999-52/.2
492.00
40.00
41,23
573.23
15378 06/09/94 RAMOS, PETE
DEPOSIT REFUND/RANOS 190-18~-4988
125.00
125.00
15379 06/09/94 000262 RANCHQ CALIFORNIA MATER 0~/13-05/12/94
190-180-999-52/*0
9.61
9.61
15380 06/09/94 001046 REXON, FREEDMAN, KLEPET MAY SERVICES
001-130-999-5247
152.00
152.00
15381 06/09/94 000266 RIGHT~AY 5/27-6/2~ 100-164-999-5238
15382 06/09/94 000353 RIVERSlOE COUNTy AUOITO PARKING CITATION/MAY 94 001-2260
15382 06/09/94 000353 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AOUITO PARKING CITATION/MAY 94 001-2265
57.39
90.00
50.00
57.39
140.00
15383 06/09/94 000268 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITA MAY 94 K-RAT 001-2300
15384 06/09/94 000270 RJM OESIGN GROUp, INC. RJM DESIGN GROUP 250-190-129-5802
5,047.50
256.6~
3,047.50
256.63
15385 06/09/94 SIMPAUCO, RENATO DEPOSIT REFUND/SIMPAUCQ 190'185-4990
15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 100-164-999-5263
15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 001-110-999-5263
15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 001-162-999-5263
15386 06/09/94 000704 SKS, INC./INLAND OIL FUEL 190-180-999-5263
92.50
456.68
56.41
56.53
114.74
92.50
684.36
15387 06/09/94 SMITH, MERRITA SECURITY REFUND/SM/TH M 190-183-4990
94.00
94.00
15388 06/09/94 001212 SOUTHERN CALIF. ORS CO. 4/15-5/16
15389 06/09/94 000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T BLAZER
190-180-999-5240
310-110-999-5214
1,489.22
20.99
1,489.22
20.99
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 001-2~70
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 100-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 190-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 191-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 192-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 193-2370
15590 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPEMSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 280-2~70
15590 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 300-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 320-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 330-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/O 5/5 & 5/19 340-2370
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. PYMT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 001-1182
15390 06/09/94 000294 STATE COMPENSATION INS. pYNT FOR P/D 5/5 & 5/19 001-1182
15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 LETTERING/FIRE DEPT 001-171-999-5242
15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 MARIA HILTOR 001-120-999-5220
15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 GI4YN FLORES 001-120-999-5220
15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 FREIGHT 001-120-999-5220
15391 06/09/94 000303 SYSTEM 2/90 FRE/GHT 001-171-999-5242
4,426.09
2,660.77
2,151.90
122.33
12.52
173.70
91.42
12.42
30,10
13.58
337.3/,
55.79
1/,5.69
15.75
6.93
6.30
1.30
1.50
10,233.65
VOUC'
06A 13:44
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUI4BER
15391 06/09/94 000303
15391 06/09/94 000303
15392 06/09/94 000320
15392 06/09/94 000320
15392 06/09/94 000320
15392 06/09/94 000320
15392 06/09/94 000320
15393 06/09/94 000326
15393 06/09/94 000326
15394 06/09/94 001209
15395 06/09/94 001474
15396 06/09/94 001342
15397 06/09/94 000621
15?'" 06/09/94 000820
1~ 06/09/94 000820
13399 06/09/94 000345
15400 06/09/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
VQtJCNER/CHECX REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VENDOR ITEM
NAME DESCRIPTION
SYSTEM 2/90 TAX
SYSTEN 2/90 TAX
TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS REQUEST FORM
TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS GLW-5OH; BINDING CASES
TONNE CENTER STATIONERS TAX
TiE CENTER STATIONERS GLW-5OH; BINDING CASES
TONNE CENTER STATIONERS TAX
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
VAULT, THE
VORTEX DATA SYSTEM
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
UNIFORM RENTAL
MISC. UNIFORM NAINT.
STORAGE HATERIAL
NETI~:)RK TRAINING COURSE
SUPPLIES
HESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNC REGISTRATION FEE
WINCHAK, KRIS
WINCHAK, KRIS
XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
ZACXEY, ANNETTE
MAY 94 ~/ORKERS CORP
PLAN CHECK SERVICES
LEASE/JUNE
TCSD REFUND/ZACKEY
ACCOUNT
NONBER
001-171-999-5242
001-120-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
100-164-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
001-120-999-5250
320-199-999-5258
190-180-999-5212
001-110-999-5258
001-1182
001-163-999-5249
330-199-999-5239
190-18~-4982
I TEN
AMOUNT
1.22
1.03
.83
74.76
5.79
49.84
3.86
23, O0
18.85
20.00
395. O0
146.54
30.00
55.79-
975. O0
1,316.44
35.00
PAGE 5
CHECK
AMOUNT
~4.2S
135.08
41.85
20. O0
395.00
146.54
30. O0
919.21
1,316.~,
35.00
TOTAL CHECKS 35,814.85
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGr
06/16/94 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVZCE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
250 CAPITAL PROJECTS - TCSD
280 REDEVELOPRENT AGENCY - C[P
300 INSURANCE FUND
VEHICLES FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
COPY CENTER FUND
FACILITIES
TCSD OEBT SERVICE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
34,058.65
9,594.31
25,095.86
1,461.87
181.31
2,142.32
164.57
1,107.58
1,292.94
15,503.65
85.91
3,986.40
245.62
768.02
1,882.05
97,571.06
VOUCr CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 1
06/1, 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERZOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
iTEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
15325 06/08/94 000253 POSTMASTER SULK MAiL
190-180-999-5230
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SOl 001-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 100-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 191-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 192-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 300-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 SOi 330-2070
340211 06/16/94 0004/~ FIRSTAX (EDO) 000444 SDI ~0-2070
340211 06/16/94 O00z~ FIRSTAX (EDO) 000444 STATE 001-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EOD) 000~ STATE 100-2070
340211 06/16/94 000~,4 FIRSTAX (EO0) 000~ STATE 190-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EOD) O00z~ STATE 191-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDO) 000444 STATE 192-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 00044~ STATE 193-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000/~ STATE 280-2070
3402" 06/16/94 000/~ FIRSTAX (EO0) 00044/, STATE 300-2070
340 36/16/94 000/~ FIRSTAX (EDD) 000/~4 STATE 320-2070
]40211 06/16/94 000444/, FIRSTAX (EOD) 00(Y+44 STATE 330-2070
340211 06/16/94 000444 FIRSTAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028,] FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 100-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 0002Rx FEDERAL 191-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000255 FEDERAL 192-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ FEDERAL 193-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX CIRS) 00028~ FEOERAL 280-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL ]/.0-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028] FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070
370013 06/16/94 0002Rx FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] NEDICARE 100-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028] FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] MEDICARE 190-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 191-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 NEDICARE 193-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] MEDICARE 280-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) 00028] MEDICARE 300-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDiCARE 320-2070
370013 06/16/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070
370013 06/16/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028] MEDICARE ]40-2070
06/16/96
000921 AETNA CASUALTY AND SURE INSURANCE
154CL~
300-199-999-5204
2,094.72
878.21
263.03
315.87
8.14
11.90
28.06
14.21
9.16
26.66
10.34
23.31
2,450.73
70937
540.59
20.88
1.26
48.53
29.51
25.96
66.42
16.12
6.68
9,162.84
2,943.61
2,861.70
57.30
44.11
214.16
131.44
~7o87
290.53
90.31
76.07
2,345.17
635.31
787.16
18.16
26.54
62.60
31.68
20.42
59.46
23.06
52.00
4,721.20
2,094.72
5,505.14
20,011.50
4,721.20
15~ 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COIqMUNICATIONS, I MONTHLY RENTAL 190-180-999-5238 121.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAG~
06/16/94 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REG/STER
FOR ALL PERZOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUHBER DATE NUMBER NAME
/TEN
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS
15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COI4MUNICATZONS
15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS
15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS
15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS
15410 06/16/94 001222 ALPHA COMMUNICATIONS
MONTHLY RENTAL
MONTHLY RENTAL
MONTHLY RENTAL
MONTHLY REHTAL
MONTHLY RENTAL
MONTHLY RENTAL
001-162-999-5238
320-199-999-5238
100-164-999-5238
001-170-999-5242
001-140-999-5250
001-100-999~5250
33,00
11.00
62.34
18.33
7.33
11.00
264. O0
15411 06/16/94 000101 APPLE ONE
15411 06/16/94 000101 APPLE ONE
APPLE ONE TEMP HELP 001-120-999-5118
SML LIASON W/E 05/0?/94 280-199-999-5250
288.96
103.20 392.16
15412 06/16/94 000745 AT & T - CELLULAR 619-987-182B NJ 001-140-999-5208
15412 06/16/94 000745 AT & T - CELLULAR 909-204-1200 320-199-999-5208
30.42
.42 30.8~
15413 06/16/94 001168 BANK OF AMERICA ADMIN FEE 390-199-999-5227
1,882.05 1,882.05
15414 06/16/94 BOLT, LOIS 88CLAIM#118/BOLT
300-199-999-5207
65.00 65.00
15415 06/16/94 001439 BRYAN'S DOG TRAINING BALANCE CONTRACT CLASS 190-183-999-5330
156.00 156.00
15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE
15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE
15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE
15416 06/16/94 001450 CAD ZONE, INC., THE
FIRE ZONE SOFTWARE (WIT 001-171-999-5296
SOFTWARE UPGRADES 001-171-999-5296
FIRE ZONE SOFTWARE (WIT 001-171-999-5296
FREIGHT 001-171-999-5296
399.00
200.00 '
249.00
8.00 856,uu
15417 06/16/94 000128 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, ENDORSEMENT
300-199-999-5201
476.44 476.44
15418 06/16/94 000398 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL INVESTNENT HANDBOOK 001-140-999-5228
26.93 26.93
15419 06/16/94 000950 CALIFORNIAN - DISPLAY JOB ANNOUNCEMENT
001-150-999-5254
47.52 47.52
15420 06/16/94 000689 CAMPBELL'S LIGHTING SIG REPLACE LAMPS
190-180-999-5212
277.74 277.74
15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
15421 06/16/94 000131 CARL WARREN & CO., INC.
LOSS 1/05/93/ROCKY NOUN 300-199-999-5205
LOSS 9/22/93/CUCClA 300-199-999-5205
LOSS 11/16/93 SCE 300-199-999-5205
LOSS 5/25/93 GTE 300'199'999-5205
LOSS 1/16/93 MILLER 300'199'999-5205
LOSS 10/lO/g3/OURRY 300-199-999-5205
262.00
125.88
163.88
266.13
22.50
142.00
98Z.39
15422 06/16/94 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER TEMP "NO PARKING SIGN" 190-180-999-5301
15422 06/16/94 000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER SIGN ORDER 100-164-999-5244
122.57
131.7~
254.36
15423 06/16/94 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
15423 06/16/94 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
15423 06/16/94 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
REPLACE 2 RADIONICS
SERVICE CHARGE
FIRE ALARM MOMITONING
250-190-129-5804
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
512.00
29.00
24.00
565.00
15424 06/16/94 000980 COSST IRRIGATION SUPPLY IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5212
8.03
15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC.
15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC.
15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC.
168455 CONEL DRAW 4
1469S3 COREL ART SHO~/
313155 ~P INFO CENTRAL
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
382.87
22.73
175.50
VOUC' CITY OF TERECULA PAGE 3
06/1 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PER[DOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEN
NUMBER DATE NUHBER NAME DESCRIPTION
15425 06/16/94 001193 COIqP USA, INC. FREIGHT
15425 06/16/94 001193 COMP USA, INC. TAX
15426 06/16/94 001488 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL
REPLACERENT PARTS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
190-180-999-5212
15427 06/16/94 000146 COUNTS UNLIN[TEO TRAFFIC CENSUS 100-164-999-5406
15428 06/16/94 001029 DATAQUICK ANNUAL CRG 320-199-999-5228
15428 06/16/94 001029 DATAQUICK MONTHLY CHG 320-199-999-5250
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15429 06/16/94 001125 DIGITAL* TELECOlelUNICATI
15430 06/16/94 ELI LILLY COMPANY ELI LILLY/REFUND
15431 06/16/94 000754 ELLIOTT GROUP, THE LDSP PLAN CHECK
15432 06/16/94 000164 ESG/L CORPORATION 5/01-5/]1
8' X 2 1/2' X 29" TABLE
6' X 2/1/2# X 29" TABLE
TAX
15433 06/16/94 000507 EVERYTHING FOR WINDOUS
15453 06/16/94 000507 EVERYTHING FOR WINDOUS
15474 06/16/94 000507 EVERYTHING FOR WINDOWS
154~. 06/16/94 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL H PHYSICAL
5473666403910081/RR
547~666403910107/WE
5473666403910107/WE
547'~666403910149 TS
15435 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK -
15435 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK -
15455 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK -
15455 06/16/94 001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK -
15436 06/16/94 000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC.
NISC COFFEE SUPPLIES
320-199-999-5250
001-2650
193-180-999-5250
001-162-999-5248
001-100-999-5250
001-100-999-5250
001-100-999-5250
001-150-999-5250
001-100-999-5260
001-110-999-5258
001-110-999-5260
001-16~-999-5260
340-199-999-5250
15437 06/16/94 000949 GKN RENTALS SKIPLOADER RENTAL 100-16~-999-5238
15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
15438 06/16/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC, OFFICE SUPPLIES
MlSC, OFFICE SUPPLIES
CREDIT BINDERS
C3023 SHIELDED DISK HAL
C4814 AUTO DATA SWITCH
C4169 TECH TOOL KIT
C72023 NOTEBOOK CARRYIN
FREIGHT
FREIGHT
FREIGHT
TAX
TAX
TAX
5120-5/26
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLONAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOSAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLZE
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLZE
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLZE
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPL[E
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIE
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPL[E
15439 06/16/94 000192 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPL[E
15~ 06/16/94 000]64 GREEK, JUNE S.
001-120-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5242
320-199-999-5220
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5242
320-199-999-5220
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5242
320-199-999-5220
001-120-999-5258
ITEM
AMOUNT
8.50
40.68
301.70
800.00
533.36
62.81
300.00
36.00
225.00
627.38
368.00
165.50
37.34
20.00
32.98
190.00
15.39
18.35
106.18
121.00
236.40
2.90
78.52
87.12
72.89-
26.95
249.90
79.95
137.90
10.11
2.92
2.51
25.35
7.32
6.]1
161 .T/
CHECK
AMOUNT
630.28
301.70
800.00
596.17
300.00
36.00
225.00
627.38
570.84
20.00
256.72
106.18
121.00
332.05
549.22
161.77
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA
06/16/94 14:33 VQUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDO~ VENDOR ITEH
NURBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AHOUNT
15441 06/16/94 000184 GTE CALIFORNIA INCORPOR 909-694-6400
320-199-999-5208
571.27
571.27
15442 06/16/94 GUZON, ALVIN GUZON/REFUND 190-183-4982
19.00
19.00
15443 06/16/94 000378 HAFEL[, THOMAS 6/05-6/07
320-199-999-5258
252.30
252.30
15444 06/16/94 000194 ICRA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP
15444 06/16/94 000194 ICRA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP
15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP
15444 06/16/94 000194 ICNA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF CONP
15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 OEF CUMP
15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF CORP
15444 06/16/94 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 4 000194 DEF COMP
15445 06/16/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL MISC POOL SUPPLIES
001-2080
100-2080
190-2080
191-2080
193-2080
280-2080
300-2080
190-180-999-5212
1,237.28
398.21
475.52
34.08
41.66
5.00
25.37
557.60
2,217.12
557.60
15446 06/16/94 JEFFREY ESTES SETTLEMENT/ESTES/MOOAFF 300-199-999-5207
9,000.00 9,000.00
15447 06/16/94 001349 KANE, BALLHER & BERIO4AN LEGAL SERV. APRIL
15447 06/16/94 001349 KANE, BALLMER & BERIO4AN MAY SERVICES
280-199-999-5246
280-199-999-5246
15448 06/16/94 000386 LANIER VOICE PRODUCTS HEADSET 001-110-999-5242
200.30
560,00
58.38
760.30
5~.
15449 06/16/94 000669 LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES; REGISTRATION/BEAUMONT 001-100-999-5258
54.00 54,00
15450 06/16/94 000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING DINNERS FOR COUNCIL
15450 06/16/94 000214 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING BOX LUNCHES
001-100-999-5260
001-150-999-5260
80.00
75.00 155.00
15451 06/16/94 NGA COOP NGA COUP/REFUND 190-183-4982
100.00 100.00
15452 06/16/94 000239 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC WE 5/29 001-162-999-5118
444.60 Z~,.60
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRER 000246 PER REDE 001-2130
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN 000246 PER REOE 100-2130
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 001-Z~90
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 100-2~90
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 190-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRER 000246 PERS RET 191-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 192-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN 000246 PERS RET 193-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIREN 000246 PERS RET 280-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 300-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 PERS RET 320-2190
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETXREN 000246 PERS RET 330'2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREN 000246 PERS RET 340-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2~90
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 100-2~90
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEESf RETIREM 0002~6 SURVIVOR 190'2:$90
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR 19~-2390
107.35
107.35
9,964.13
2,731.69
2,486.59
80.07
96.57
284.38
155.58
95.92
258.70
104.86
222.10
48,75
12.54
14.88
.42
.93
1.44
VOUC" CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
06/: 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FO~ ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NANE DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREM 000246 SURVIVOR
15453 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIREN 000246 SURVIVOR
15455 06/16/94 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RET[REM 0002~ SURVIVOR
280-2390
300-2390
320-2~90
330-2390
340-2390
.56
.46
.93
.93
1.86
16,778.99
15454 06/16/94 000248 PETROLANE FUEL B&S
001-162-999-5263
204.49
204.49
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 320-199-999;5220
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 190-180-999-5260
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 280-199-999-5250
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 190-180-999-5250
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-110-999-5260
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-100-999-5260
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-140-999-5261
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 190-181-999-5301
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-163-999-5260
15455 06/16/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH 001-162-999-5440
24.20
9.76
31.01
10.73
20.00
20.00
13.50
35.08
48.99
42.80
256.07
15456 06/16/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COIlPAN JOe ANNOUNCEMENTS
001-150-999-5254
326.22
326.22
15 06/16/94 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY
154,, 06/16/94 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY
15457 06/16/94 000255 PRO LOCK & KEY
REPAIR BROKEN EQUIP
SERVICE FT AND BACK DO0
LOCKSM/TH SERVICES
190-181-999-5250
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
35.00
35.00
9.70
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/07-5/10
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/14-5/16
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCRO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/14-5/16
15458 06/16/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER 4/14-5/16
15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
15459 06/16/94 000426 RANCHO INOUSTRIAL SUPPL
JANITONIAL SUPPLIES
TCSO SUPPLIES
JANITORAL SUPPLIES
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
190-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
190-181-999~5240
100-164-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
~,0-199-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
3,331.60
86.15
661.17
77.19
14.45
575.32
71.18
143.77
199.07
38.66
9.56
61.35
4,~0.8~
308.64
15460 06/16/94 000418 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK NOE FEES
001-161-999-5248
~8.00
78.00
15461 06/16/94 001486 ROBERTS, MIKE REINB/WORKSHOR 001-170-999-5261
50.00
50.00
15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY BUSINESS CARDS/RICH SOL 190-180-999-5220
15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY TAX 190-180-999-5220
15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY 500 BUSINESS CAROS; 280-199-999-5248
15462 06/16/94 000285 SIR SPEEOY TAX 280-199-999-5248
27.70
2.14
27.70
2.15
59.69
15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL/F. EDISON 5/02-6/02
15 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. BISON 5/04-6/03
15, 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 5/04-6/03
190-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5240
1,405.81
28.71
4,149.29
VOUCHRE2 C[TY OF TEHECULA PAGF ~
06116194 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUHBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEH
DESCRXPTZON NUMBER AHOUNT
15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL]F. EDISON 5/04-6/03
15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. EO[SON 5/06-6/07
15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL[F. EOiSON 5/06-6/07
15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL[F. EDISON 4/21-5/20
15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CAL[F. EDISON 4/25-5/25
15463 06/16/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/25-5/25
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
1546~ 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOIGON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31
1546/, 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF. EOISON 4/30-5/31
15464 06/16/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF, EDISON 4/30-5/31
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF, TELEPHO
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4763 PB
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4764 BB
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4765 BB
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4769 JS
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4770/RB
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4204 WE
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4751/TS
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4754 KR NAY
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4756 TH
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF, TELEPHO 909-202-4758 RR
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4760 JN
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPNO 909-202-4762 RP
15465 06/16/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF. TELEPHO 909-202-4759/TE
1546~ 06/16/94 000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T OIL CHANGE
15467 06/16/94 001487 TIERRA MECHANICAL, INC.
191-180-9q9-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
190-181-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
190-182-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
909-202-4753 BH NAY 190-180-999-5208
909-202-4755 CITY VAN M 190-180-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
100-164-999-5208
100-164-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
001-110-999-5208
001-110-999-5208
100-164-999-5208
190-180-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
100-16~-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
001-162-999-5208
310-162-999-5214
EMERGENCY REPAIR
190-180-999-5250
36.60
246.26
54.13
748.38
1,267.99
132.81
30.93
26.71
17.14
16.10
25.86
27.99
28.67
28.79
28.55
30.13
35.20
35.20
24.41
34,93
32,02
102.78
29.89
27.19
26.71
28.24
30.01
28.85
23,49
64.83
65.62
48.73
63.13
48.79
60.72
67.74
47.09
77.46
74.13
36.34
108.35
156.06
127.32
61.04
85.91
400.00
CHECK
AMOUNT
8,069.98
719.79
1,107.35
85.91
400
VOUCH~ CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7
06/1( 14:33 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
15668
15669
15469
15469
15469
15670
15470
15670
15470
15471
15471
15471
15471
15471
15472
15672
1567~
156~
15672
15673
15673
15673
15474
15475
15476
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/96
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
~6/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/96
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
06/16/94
000319 TONARK SPORTS, INC.
000320 TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCR]PTION NUMBER
REPAIR BASKETBALL COURT 250-190-129-5804
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
000325 UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW
000325 UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW
000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW
000325 UNITEO MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UM
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICE
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE NISC. UNIFORM NAINT.
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE FLOOR HATS
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE CRC FLOOR NAT RENTAL
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE FLOOR MAT
001065 USCM/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 DEF CONP
001065 USCM/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 OEF CONP
001065 USCM/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 DEF CONP
001065 USCN/PEBSCO (OEF. CONP. 001065 OEF CONP
001065 USCN/PEBSCO (DEF. CONP. 001065 OEF CONP
001065 USCN/PEBSCO (OEF. CUMP. 001065 DEF CONP
190-180-999-5Z20
190-180-999-5220
190-180-999-5220
001-163-999-5220
001-2120
I00-2120
190-2120
280-2120
100-164-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
S40-199-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
001-2080
100-2080
190-2080
300-2080
320-2080
S40-2080
000389 USCM/PEBSCO, COBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160
000389 USCM/PEBSCO, (ORRA) 000389 PT RETIR 100-2160
000389 USCM/PEBSCO, (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 190-2160
000621 UESTERN RIVERSIDE COONC
000539 gINHER YANADA ASSOCIATE
000348 ZIGLERw GAIL
ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING 001-161-999-5260
HAY 1-HAY 31
210-190-120-5802
REFRESHMENTS
190-180-999-5250
ITEM
AMOUNT
595.58
124.77
16.87
319.93
21.30
78.90
1.00
17.00
.60
23.00
18.85
30.75
207.47
16.75
2,224.15
197.98
156.32
3.46
312.50
50.00
163.62
96.00
664.38
15.00
164.57
123.75
CHECK
AMOUNT
595.58
482.87
97.50
296.82
2,944.41
924.00
15.00
164.57
123.75
TOTAL CHECKS 97#571.06
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGr ~'~
06/16/94 15:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
FUND T;TLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 COHHUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL INPROVENENT PROJ FUND
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORNATION SYSTEHS
330 COPY CENTER FUND
TOTAL
ANOUNT
169,300.12
15,371.00
15,22~.40
475.00
1,977.40
100,187.98
2,271.76
5o010.00
1,680.0/+
311,696.70
VOUCk' CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
06/1~ 15:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
15480
15480
15481
15481
15481
15481
15481
15481
15481
15482
15485
15483
15484
15485
15485
154PJ:
15
154~,
15485
15486
15487
15488
15488
15489
15490
15490
15490
15490
15491
15492
15493
15494
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
)6/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
001344 AMERICAN CONTRACTING,
001344 AMERICJ~N CORTRACTXNG,
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
001210 D.R. SCHMIDT
001380 E.S.I. EMPLOYMENT SYSTE
001380 E.S.I. EMPLOYMENT $YSTE
000161 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC.
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANOSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
000711 GRAPH%CS UNLIMITED LITH
001489 HUGHES INVESTIGATION AG
000202 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATE
000202 J,F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATE
000217 HARCAR/TA OFFICIALS ASS
000231 NBS/LO~RY, INC.
0002~1 NBS/LO~RY, INC.
0002.31 NBS/LOW~Y, INC.
000211 NBS/LOWRY, INC.
001007 NPG CONP.
000247 PESTMASTER
000267 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE D
000678 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HEALTH
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
SPORTS PARK SLOPE REPAI 210-166-648-5804
RETENTION 210-2035
TREE TRIMMING
LANDSCAPE K~INTEMANCE
ADD LANDSCAPE HAINTENAN
NEIGHBORHOe0 PARKS MAIN
MEDIANS SERVICE AREA
JOHN HAGEE PARK
KENT RINTERGARDT PARK
193-180-999-5415
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
191-180-999-5415
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
DELETION OF 2 DESILT/NG I00-16~-999-5401
HAY SERVICES
APRIL SERVICES
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
LICENSE/SUPPORT
320-199-999-5250
IRRIGATION REPAIR
IRRIGATION REPAIR
EMERGENCY IRRIGATION
TREE TRIle4ING/EUCALYPTU
LDSP HAINTENANCE/PRESLE
LDSP PAINT VERANDA ADD
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
193-180-999-5415
19]-180-999-5415
19]-180-999-5415
MISC. COPIES FOR GP COV 001-161-999-5222
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE 300-199-999-5207
LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJEC 001-163-999-5250
DESIGN SERVICES NAY 210-190-137-5802
ADULT SOFTBALL
190-18S-999-5380
LAND SURVEYING
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL DESIGN & SURVEY
CREDIT MEMO
210-166-627-5802
210-166-627-5802
210-166-627-5802
210-166-627-5802
REPAIR POT HOLES
100-164-999-5402
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED CONTR 100-164-999-5402
THIRD QUARTER 93/94 BIL 001-171-999-5251
ANIMAL CONTROL/APRIL 001-172-999-5255
ITEM
AMOUNT
90,422.00.
9,042.20'
1,375.00
3,582.81
175.00
3,762.53
475.00
376.13
3,326.31
7,730.00
4,637.71
3,745.28
1,410.00
431.83
175.83
763.96
150.00
27O. O0
182.40
1,618.41
2,271.76
1,750.00
11,773.68
2,629.00
77.50-
650.00
6,110.00
1,165.00'
1,386.00
2,805.00
146,208.09
5,551.25
CHECK
AMOUNT
81,379.80
13,072,78
7,7'30.00
8,382.99
1,410.00
1,974.02
1,618.41
2,271.76
13,523.68
2,629.00
5,517.50
1,386.00
2,805.00
146,208.09
5,551.25
15495 06/28/94 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 60 CASES HIGH QUALITY L 330-199-999-5220 1,079.40
15495 06/28/94 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY RECYCLED COPIER PAPER 330-199-999-5220 479.80
15' 06/28/94 000269 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY TAX 330-199-999-5220 120.84 1,680.0~
VOUCHRE2
06/16/9/, 15:16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
15496 06/28/94
15497 06/28/94
15498 06/28/94
15499 06/28/94
15500 06/28/94
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERZOOS
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
000271 ROBERT BEIN, ~IN FROST &
001459 S.G. WELSH CO.# INC.
000434 SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS
000978 TRAUMA INTERVENTION PRO 4TH QTR BILLING
000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI PLAN CK MARCH
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
PROFESSIONAL SERV. APRI 210-165-637-5802
REPAIR COBCRETE 100-16~-999-5402
SIERRA SOFTWARE MAINTEN 320-199-999-5211
001-171-999-5274
001-162-999-5248
TOTAL CHECKS
ZTEM
AMOUNT
1,517.00
3#450.00
3,600.00
1,312.50
pAGr n
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,517.00
3,450.00
3,600.00
1,312.50
4,476.88
311,496.70
ITEM 4
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
June 28, 1994
U.S. Treasury Resolution for Old Town Entertainment Center Preliminary
Studies
That the City Council adopot a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE
ISSUED BY THE CITY AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS.
DISCUSSION: In the event that a portion of the Old Town Temecula Entertainment
Center project is funded by bond proceeds, adoption of the attached resolution will allow the
City of Temecula to be reimbursed for the $125,000 of preliminary studies already authorized
by the City Council. The resolution is necessary for the future bond issue to be tax exempt
if these costs are to be repaid from the proceeds of the issue.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF
OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY AND
DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTION
RESOLVED, By the City Council of the City of Temecula, California (the
"City"):
WI:rF~REAS, the City proposes to undertake the project referenced below, to issue
debt for such project and to use a portion of the proceeds of such debt to reimburse
expenditures made for the project prior to the issuance of the debt;
WHEREAS, United Syates Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides
generally that proceeds of m-exempt debt are not deemed to be expcoded when such
proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of
such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that (with
certain exceptions), prior to the payment of any such expenditures, the issuer declare an
intention to reimburse such expenditure; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declare
its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein;
NOW, T!tEREFORE, it is hereby DECLAI~I~ AND ORDERF-D, as follows:
1. The City intends to issue obligations (the "Obligations") for the purpose of paying
the costs of the Old Town Entertainment Center (the "Project")
2. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects (i) to pay certain costs of the
Project prior to the date of issuance of the Obligations and (ii) to be use a potion of the
proceeds of the Obligations for reimbursement of expenditures for the Project that are paid
before the date of issuance of the Obligations.
3. The maximum principal mount of the Obligations is $125,000.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPOT'E1}, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting on the 281h day of June, 1994.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, DO I-IEI~-RY CERTIFY that
Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
June 28, 1994
SB 2557 Agreement (Booking Fees)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1 ) Approve the settlement agreement with Riverside County concerning SB 2557
booking fees,
2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement and,
3) Transfer $84,324 to account #001-170-999-5273from acct #001-170-999-
5288.
DISCUSSION: SB 2557 became effective January 1, 1991 which authorized counties
to charge cities for booking prisoners. The City of Temecula has never paid these fees as
invoiced by the County pending settlement of negotiations concerning validity and effective
date of the fee. As a result, the County of Riverside cancelled the City's contract for law
enforcement services as of July 1, 1994.
The City of Temecula then joined other Riverside County cities to negotiate a settlement with
the County. Attached is the agreement negotiated with the County, which provides that
booking fees will be paid for the period September 1993 through January 1994 and on a
monthly basis subsequent to January. In return the County will reinstate the police contract.
The benefits of the settlement are that we will avoid the expense of litigation and the fees will
not have to be paid for the period January 1991 through August 1993.
Attachment: Settlement Agreement
2ETTLE!~NTA~RE~
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "the
Agreement") is entered into as of the day of ,
1994, by and between the Cities of BANNING, BEAUMONT, BLYTHE,
CALIMESA, CANYON LAKE, CATHEDRAL CITY, COACHELLA, DESERT HOT
SPRINGS, HEMET, INDIAN WELLS, INDIO, LAKE ELSINORE, MURRIETA,
NORCO, PALM SPRINGS, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE, SAN JACINTO, TEMECULA, AND
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES OF THOSE CITIES (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "the Cities") and the COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE (hereinafter referred to as "the county").
RECITALS
A. The Cities are cities and redevelopment agencies duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
and are located within the jurisdictional and geographic boundaries
of the County of Riverside.
B. The County is a county duly organized and existing as a
political subdivision of the State of California.
C. The County provides certain booking and other processing
services at County's jail(s) for persons arrested by the Cities.
P~2~482~01440~0001~20~3762.2 0~0~)4 '1--
D. The County also provides law enforcement services by
contract to those Cities listed on Exhibit "A," attached and
incorporated here (the "Contract Cities").
E. Cities which previously have settled with the County on
the issues contained in this Agreement are listed in Exhibit "B,"
attached and incorporated, and are not included in or affected by
this Agreement.
F. On or about July 1, 1990, Senate Bill 2557 was signed by
the Governor of the State of California as a non-urgency measure.
Senate Bill 2557 was codified to include California Government Code
S 29550 and Revenue & Taxation Code S 97, which became effective
January 1, 1991.
G. Pursuant to Government Code S 29550, counties were
authorized to retroactively charge cities and other entities a
criminal justice administrative fee (also known as a "booking fee")
for expenses incurred after July 1, 1990, in connection with the
booking or other processing of persons arrested byemployees of the
cities and other entities.
H. Government Code S 29550 requires that the amount of the
fee not exceed the actual administrative costs, including
applicable overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A-87
standards, incurred in booking or otherwise processing those
arrested persons.
FS2~482XOI4405-(X)OI~20~762.2 0~,~ '2--
I. The County's Board of Supervisors considered a proposal
from the Administrative Office that booking fees be charged to
Cities 'commencing March 1, 1991, but thereafter determined that
such fees instead should be retroactive to July 1, 1990.
J. Pursuant to Section 29550 of the Government Code, on or
about March 1, 1991, the County adopted its Resolution 90-650,
Ordinance No. 702, effective March 21, 1991, permitting the County
to charge a criminal justice administrative fee, retroactive to
July 1, 1990, in the amount of $110.40. The County sent invoices
dated March 19, 1991 to the Cities requesting payment for
retroactive fees. The County has continued to bill for such fees;
the parties agree billings are current through January 31, 1994.
K. Senate Bill 2557 also amended the Revenue & Taxation Code
to add subsections (e) and (f) of ~ 97, which provide for the
County to charge a property tax administrative fee for collection
of city property taxes. County also maintained a separate fee was
owing for collection of property tax administrative fees from
redevelopment agencies.
L. County adopted and allocated such property tax
administration fees, including those for redevelopment agencies,
pursuant to its Ordinance No. 703 (effective March 21, 1991).
County deducted property tax administrative fees from Cities'
April, 1991, tax revenues. After receiving invoices for such fees
to redevelopment agencies,
Government Code S 907.
Cities protested payment under
M. On or about April 17, 1991, certain of the Cities filed
suit against the County in the Superior Court of Riverside County,
Case No. 211185 (hereinafter referred to as "the Lawsuit"),
challenging the validity of the booking fees and property tax
administration fees.
N. In May 1991, in Riverside Superior Court the County
stipulated it would not withhold any criminal justice
administrative fees from certain funds which were due and owing to
the Cities by the County where a timely and proper dispute letter
was received by the County pursuant to Gov't Code S 907. A number
of Cities have withheld fees pursuant to this stipulation.
O. On or about May 18, 1991, the Riverside County Superior
Court issued a TRO, and on June 17, 1991, a preliminary injunction,
requiring the County to hold property tax administrative fees
charged to redevelopment agencies in a special account not subject
to disbursement pending adjudication of Cities' arguments. On
August 1, 1991, the County appealed the preliminary injunction,
which appeal remains pending.
P. On or about October 17, 1991, the Lawsuit was added to
Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Coordinated Proceeding") in which 180 cities,
redevelopmen~ agencies and other public agencies within the State
of California challenged the legality of Government Code § 29550
and the actions taken by their respective counties to implement
that section.
Q. On or about December, 1991, the court in the coordinated
proceeding upheld the withholding of booking fee payments after
written protest under Government Code S 907.
R. On or about September 1, 1992, the court in the
Coordinated Proceeding granted summary adjudication in favor of
Contract Cities finding they were not subject to payment of booking
fees based upon the specific language of their current law
enforcement contracts with the County.
S. On or about July 1, 1993, the County gave notice under
those contracts that it would cease providing law enforcement
services to the Contract Cities on July 1, 1994, if the Contract
Cities do not agree to pay booking fees owing from March 1, 1993.
The County also has withheld PERS credits pending resolution of
this matter.
T. While the Coordinated Proceeding has been pending, an
appellate court separately, in unrelated proceedings, determined
that property tax administrative fees are applicable to
redevelopment agencies. In Arcadia RedeveloDment Aoency v. Ikemoto
the appellate court determined that retroactive amendments to the
administrative fees. The County agrees to drop its appeal of the
preliminary injunction and Cities agree that the preliminary
injunction will be dissolved on the effective date of this
Agreement. Cities which are Plaintiffs in the litigation shall
prepare and file a dismissal with prejudice.
2. PaVment of Property Tax Administrative Fees. As a result
of County deduction from property taxes owing, Cities have paid
property tax administrative fees throughout the litigation and no
such fees are owing to County. Property tax administrative fees
deducted from redevelopment agency revenues have been held by the
County Auditor-Controller pursuant to the preliminary injunction
and will be available to the County (along with any interest earned
thereon) upon dissolution of the preliminary injunction as set out
in paragraph 1, above.
3. Payment of Criminal Justice Administrative Fees. The
Cities shall pay criminal justice administrative fees to the County
as follows:
a. Prior to July 1, 1994 (the "effective date"),
certain Contract Cities shall pay any booking fees owing from
September 1, 1993 (or from the dates specified in Exhibit A),
through January 31, 1994, in the amounts set out for those Cities
on Exhibit "A." Prior to July 1, 1994, amounts paid before such
dates, or credits owing, also shall be credited to Cities and
thereafter shall be available as each indicates for payments
otherwise owing to the County.
b. Prior to July 1, 1994, certain Non-contract Cities
shall pay any booking fees owing from March 1, 1991, through
January 31, 1994, in the amounts which have been invoiced and as
set out for such Cities on Exhibit "C." County waives, releases
and discharges any claim against cities for such amounts owing from
July 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, including any unknown
claims, and County specifically waives its rights under Civil Code
section 1542 as set out in paragraph 5 hereof.
c. Certain Non-contract Cities which paid booking fees
between July 1, 1990, and March 1, 1991, shall receive a credit
against future payments owing to County (which credit shall be
available upon the execution of this Agreement) in the amounts paid
during that period as set out on Exhibit "C."
d. As of February 1, 1994 or thereafter, subject to
receipt of an invoice therefor and Government Code S 907, Cities
shall pay booking fees as billed at the rate of $110.40, subject to
any future increase or decrease in the amount of the fee based on
Senate Bill 2286 or other legislation, repeal or amendment of the
statutory authority therefor, or court invalidation or modification
of the fee. Cities reserve the right to challenge any specific
invoice and any future change or increase in the fee and County
reserves the right to challenge any nonpayment subject to the
provisions of Government Code S 907 and other applicable laws.
e. Nothing herein shall be treated as a waiver of the
Cities' ability to contest the County's recalculation of (or
failure to recalculate) the booking fee under SB 2286.
f. On the effective date of this Agreement, County
shall credit to Contract Cities the PERS credit amounts set out in
Column ~ on Exhibit "A," which credits shall be applied to
future billings from County to Contract Cities for provision of
contract law enforcement services
g. Upon execution of this Agreement by the Contract
Cities, any previous notices sent by the County to the Contract
City purporting to terminate the current law enforcement services
contract between the County and the Contract City shall be deemed
withdrawn and/or rescinded.
4. Interest. No interest is owing on any amounts to be paid
by either party under this Agreement.
5. Release. By this Agreement, for the period July 1, 1990
through the effective date hereof, County waives, releases and
discharges any claim against Cities for any additional booking
fees, property tax administrative fees or related fees or charges
or any action, demand or liability, known or unknown, relating to
such fees. County further acknowledges that it is aware of Civil
Code S 1542, which provides as follows:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO
CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR
SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM
MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEBTOR."
County waives any rights thereunder, as well as those arising under
any statutes or common law principles.
6. Amendments. This is an entire agreement and supersedes
all prior agreements, oral or written, between the parties, and
their agents, and cannot be amended unless in writing, with
specific reference heretobythe parties authorized to be charged.
Failureby any party to enforce any provision shall not constitute
a waiver of that party's rights to enforce a subsequent violation
of the same or any other provision.
7. Inurement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties.
8. Captions and Exhibits. The captions of Sections and
Subsections of this Agreement are for reference only and are not to
be construed in any way as part of this Agreement. All exhibits
are included in the Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
F~2'.~g2\OI440~OOOIUO~3762.2 06/0g/94 --10--
9. Validity. This Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
10. Severability. If any section, clause or phrase of this
Agreement is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or
unlawful, such a decision shall not effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Agreement.
11. Execution in Counterparts. This
executed in counterparts, each of which shall
part of the original.
Agreement may be
be deemed to be a
12. Fees and Expenses. Each party to this Agreement shall
bear their own attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from the SB
2557 litigation. Notwithstanding, the parties agree that should
legal proceedings be commenced concerning any provision of this
Agreement, in addition to any other remedy, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to an award of costs and attorneys fees as
determined by the court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to
be executed by their respective officers as of the date first above
written.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
By:
Larry Parrish
County Administrative Officer
APPROVED:
William C. Katzenstein
County Counsel
By:
Principal Deputy
County Counsel
ATTEST:
By:
Clerk of the Board
EXH~IT
1. Cities Which Have Separate Agreements/Settlements
Moreno Valley
Palm Desert
Raneho Mirage
CoroBa
India~ W~ll~
ITEM 6
APPROVAL R~
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
June 28, 1994
Resolution Establishing City's Gann Appropriations Limit for the
Fiscal Year 1994-95
PREPARED BY: Genie Roberrs, Chief Accountant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT FOR FY 1994-95.
DISCUSSION: In accordance with the Government Code, the City is required to
recompute the Gann limit on an annual basis.
Using cost of living data provided by the State of California and population data provided by
the State Department of Finance and the increase in non-residential assessed valuation
provided by HdL, Coren & Cone, the City's Appropriations Limit for FY 1994-95 has been
computed to be $14,796,098. This computation considers the effect of Proposition 111.
Appropriations subject to the limitation in the FY 1994-95 Budget total $9,069,758 which is
$5,726,340 less than the computed limit.
Additional appropriations to the budget funded by non-tax sources such as service charges,
restricted revenues from other agencies, grants or beginning fund balances would be
unaffected by the Appropriations Limit. However, any supplemental appropriations funded
through increased tax sources would be subject to the Appropriations Limit and could not
exceed the $5,726,340 variance indicated above. Further, any overall actual receipts from
tax sources greater than $5,726,340from budget estimates will result in proceeds from taxes
in excess of the City's Appropriations Limits, requiring refunds of the excess within the next
two fiscal years or voter approval of an increase in the City's Appropriations Limit.
FISCAL IMPACT: As indicated in the attached schedule, the City's appropriations subject
to limitation as proposed in the FY 1994-95 Budget are $5,726,340 less than the computed
limit. Any supplemental appropriations funded through non-tax sources would be unaffected
by the Appropriations Limit. However, supplemental appropriations funded by tax revenues
in excess of budget projections would be subject to limitation and could not exceed the
$5,726,340margin indicated above. Further, any overall increases in tax sources greater than
$5,726,340from budget estimates will result in proceeds from taxes in excess of the City's
Appropriations Limit, requiring refunds of the excess within the City's Appropriations Limit.
In implementing the provisions of SB 1352 as they relate to the Gann Initiative, it is
recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution establishing the City's
Appropriations Limit for FY 1994-95 of 914,796,098.
ATTACHMENTS:
Schedule "1" - Classification of Revenue Sources and Calculation of Limit Margin
Resolution No. 94- Establishing City's Gann Appropriations Limit for FY 1994-95
Exhibit "A" Computation of Gann Appropriations Limit
:lassification of Revenue Sources and
Calculation of Limit Margin
FY 1994-95
Property tax
Sales and use tax
Property transfer tax
Transient occupancy tax
Business license fee
Franchise fees
Licenses & permits
Fines & forfeitures
Motor vehicle in lieu
Gas tax
Overhead reimbursement - TCSD
Overhead reimbursement - RDA
Overhead reimbursement - Capital Projects
.,,liscellaneous
Investment interest
Appropriations subject to limitation
before Prop. 111 exclusions
Prop. 111 exclusions:
Federal mandates (Medicare)
Qualified capital outlay
Appropriations subject to limitation
Gann limit
Margin
Non-tax
Proceeds
740,000
1,693,784
98,815
600,661
162,000
75,000
436,574
179,000
75,180
4,061,014
Schedule I
Tax
Proceeds
$ 1,130,691
5,900,000
150,000
480,000
85,750
1,113,769
167,120
9,027,330
42,428
0
9,069,758
14,796,098
$ 5,726,34O
RESOLUTION NO. 94--
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA ESTABI,I,~HING THE APPROPRIATIONS
LIM1T FOR FY 1994--9~
WHEREAS, the voters approved the Gann Spending-Limitation Initiative (Proposition
4) on November 6, 1979, adding Article XITt B to the Constitution of the State of California to
establish and define annual appropriation limits on state and local governmental entities;
WHEREAS, SB 1352 provides for the implementation of Article XIII B by defining
various terms used in this article and prescribing procedures to be used in implementing specific
provisions of the article, including the establishment by resolution each year by the governing
body of each local jurisdiction of its appropriations limits;
WHEREAS, the required computations to determine the Appropriations Limit for
FY1994-95 have been performed by the Department of Finance and are on file with the Office
of the City Clerk, and available for public review;
WHEREAS, these computations are provided on the page of Exhibit "A" which is
herein incorporated by reference and attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Appropriations Limit for the City of Temecula for FY1994-95 is
hereby established at $12,244,171.00.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
cause a certified resolution to 'be fled in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED AND ADOFrED this 281h day of/une, 1994
ATfbST:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
r=~ 23 I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
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 28th day of June,
1994, by the following vot~ of the Council:
AYES: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, CityClerk
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMPUTATION OF GANN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
FY 1992-93Appropriations Limit .............................. $10,109,911
FY 1993-94 Population Change* ................................... 8.25%
FY 1993-94 Per Capita Personal Income Change* ....................... 2.72%
Cumulative Compound ( 1.0825 x 1.0272) ........................... 11.19 %
FY 1993-94Appropriations Limit .............................. $11,241,655
FY 1994-95 Population Change* .................................... 8.15%
FY 1994-95 Increase in Non-Residential Assessed Valuation* * ............... 21.7%
Cumulative Compound (1.0815 x 1.2170) ............................ 31.61 %
FY 1994-95 Appropriations Limit ............................... $14,796,098
*Source:
* *Source:
State of California Department of Finance
HdL Coren & Cone
ITEM 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
,/r~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 28, 1994
Contract Amendment No. 1 to Moraga Road Street Widening - PW92-10
Engineering Services Contract with NBS Lowry, Inc.
PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve Contract Amendment No. I to provide additional engineering
services for Moraga Road Street Widening by NBS Lowry, Inc. for the outlet structure redesign
in the amount of $7,000.00.
BACKGROUND:
In March 1993, NBS Lowry completed their original design of the widening of Moraga Road
between Margarite Road and Rancho California Road, which included an extension of e box
culvert and an outlet structure. The rain in January and February of 1993 significantly change
the existing site conditions. Since then additional rains has contributed more erosion to the
area. These rains have created a 12':1: deep hole just beyond the existing outlet structure,
along with forming a second channel bottom.
These changes have required the original scope of work for the design of the proposed road
widening and outlet structure to be expanded. This will require extra down stream channel
surveying to ensure that the proposed grades match the existing field conditions. A striping
plan for Moraga Road will also be included in this amendment for a total cost not to exceed
$7,000.
-1- pw04\egdrpt~94%0628~pw92-10.Ad I 061694
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amendment No. I will be paid though Measure A funds. The total cost of this amendment
is summarized below:
A. Approved Contract
B. Proposed Amendment No. 1
Total:
$10,000
$7,000
$17,000
Attachment: Amendment No. 1, NBS Lowry, Inc.
-2- pwO4\egdq~t%94%0628~pw92-10.Adl 061694
AMENDMENT NO. 1
l'BS/Lowry, Incorporated
Moraga Road Street Widening Project
PURCHASE ORDER NO. 12888
The Agreement dated June 28, 1994 between the City of Temecula, and NBS/Lowry,
Incorporated (herein referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows:
Professional Services for Moraga Road Street Widening Project, Project No. PW92-10
RE: Professional Services
Moraga Road Slreet Widening Project
Section 1
Scope of services
Perform new field topographic survey of the channel to a point approximately four
hundred (400) feet downstream of the centerline of Moraga Road to determine the new
channel configuration. This assumes a maximum of 12 hours of field time.
Prepare a plot of the topography based upon the field survey to be used as a base sheet
for the revised grading and sections.
Upon completion of the base sheet, prepare redline and meet with the City to discuss the
design and regrading of the channel to accommodate the flows as shown on the existing
plans. It is assumed that a tiprap 'drop structure" will be constructed at a slope of 5:1
from the box culverts to the existing channel flowline.
Prepare hydraulic calculations to determine the extent of the riprap energy dissipator.
Riprap sizes and limits will be based upon the assumption of a single channel with no
split flows occurring. Flow volume and velocity will be as shown on the existing plans
No new volume or velocity calculations will be performed.
Based upon the meetings and above assumptions, prepare a channel grading plan which
encompasses an area not larger than Chat depicted by the field survey.
Prepare a striping plan for Moraga Road which will indicate the revised slriping in the
area of Moraga Road construction. Striping configuration will be based upon layout
provided by the City.
The above services to design the proposed improvements to be completed by July 26, 1994.
Specifically exculded items:
1. Additional geotechnical services required to investigate the changed conditions and
recommendations for final footing design.
2. Gootechnicla services required during construction.
3. Hydraulic calcuhtions other than those required to size the tiprap energy dissipation.
4. Preparation and processing of pemu'ts/applieations with the Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Fish & Game, and Regional Water Qulalty Control Board, etc.
5. Negotiations (or additional work requests) with the affieted property owners.
6. Any services not specifically listed in the above Scope of Services.
Section 2
Compensation for services shall be Wtal of all services described in this Amendment and shall
not exceed seven thousand dolhrs & no cents ($7,000.00).
Section 3
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
Peter Thorson, City AtWmey
ATFF_ST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 8
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
,/~ Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 28,1994
SUBJECT:
"No Parking" Zone to Facilitate Emergency Vehicle Access on Villa
Alturas, Loma Portola Drive, Santa Suzanne Place, Mira Loma Drive and
La Primavera Street Adjacent to Existing Medians
PREPARED BY: Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING 'NO PARKING' ZONES ON VILLA
ALTURAS, LOMA PORTOLA DRIVE, SANTA SUZANNE PLACE,
MIRA LOMA DRIVE AND LA PRIMAVERA STREET AS SHOWN
ON EXHIBITS "B" THROUGH '1"
BACKGROUND:
During routine inspection by the City's insurance carrier, and the Public Works Maintenance
Superintendent, the City's insurance representative recommended extending existing parking
restrictions adjacent to entrance medians. The Maintenance Division of the Public Works
Department then re-painted existing red curb at an entrance to the Lake Village neighborhood
on Via Alturas at Pauba Road. The Maintenance superintendent extended the existing red
curb, as recommended to ensure clear access for emergency vehicles. This re-painting was
objected to by an adjacent property owner because of the visual impact. This item was then
brought to the attention of the Traffic Division for resolution. The Traffic Division reviewed
all similar parking restrictions for appropriate emergency vehicle clearance as show on Exhibit
The Fire Department was contacted to see if the recommended restrictions would facilitate
the use of emergency vehicles. The criteria identified by Battalion Chief Brodowski was that
the minimum roadway width (through lane), for emergency vehicle access, should be 18 feet.
r:~agdl~t\94~O628~prkemetiency .agn/ajp
The City's insurance carrier was also contacted to be sure our efforts, to conform with
recommendations from the Fire Department, did not have any negative ramifications. Their
loss control consultant stated that it is imperative that these areas be restricted to indicate
that no parking is allowed.
On May 26, 1994 the Public/Traffic Safety Commission supported staff's recommendation to
extend the existing red curb parking restriction as shown on Exhibits "B" through "1".
FISCAL IMPACT:
The installation of red curb will be performed by the Public Works Maintenance Crew.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 94-
Exhibit "A" - Scope of Investigation
Exhibit "B" through "1" Proposed Parking Restriction
r:~agd~t~94~O628~opttemergeney.agn/ajp
RFSOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ESTABLI,qHING "NO PARKING" ZONES
ON VHJ~A ALTURAS, LOMA PORTOLA DRIVE, SANTA
SUZANNE PLACE, MIRA LOMA DRIVE AND LA
PRIMAVERA STREET AS SHOWN ON EIOIIRITS "B"
THROUGH "r'
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 10.16.160, of the Temecula Municipal Code, "No
Parking" zones is hereby established in the City of Temecula on Villa Alturas, Loma Portola
Drive, Santa Suzanne Place, Mira Loma Drive and La Primavera Street as shown on Exhibits
"B" through 'T'.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of June, 1994.
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
ATI"EST:
June S. Greek, C~ty Clerk
[SEALI
r.~gdrpt~94',O628~rkem~rg~y .ag~ijp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of June, 1994 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
0 CO~C~MEMB~S:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
CO~C~MEMB~S:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
r:~agdtpt\94\O628Xnopdcemer~ezy.agn/ajp
4
SCALE: J'=~'
DrivewGy
:DrivewGy
Drivewc~y
<
F
F
]>
:Drlvewey
LEGEND:
EXISTING RED CURB
PROPOSED REI] CURB
--- z7,--4,,X~,'x-----~ z7' ,
x/v'
Drlvewo, y
Drlvewc~y
]>
C
]>
Fr]
V)
PRDPDSED NO PARKING ZDNE "EXHIBIT
LDCATIDN 01
DPiveway ~
T
Driveway
LEGEND:
EXISTING RED CURB
PRFIPBSED RE]) CURB
PRnPnSED
NE] PARKING SI?
VV'
VV'
PRDPDSE]~ ND PARKZNG
LOCATION
Driveway
ZONE "EXHIBIT
~2
<
F
F
~>
F
C
DPivewoy
["-4 Drlvewoy
.~CALE I'=~0'
LEGEND'.
PRDPDSED RED CURI~
PRDPDSED
V%/'
'1
ND PARKING
LDCATIDN
]]riveway
Dr'ivewGy
ZDNE 'EXHIt~IT
fi3
n
I>
M
<[
J
[]
A/
F]
Z
J
DPivewGy
DPivewGy
TI
VISTA
:
- SCN.::
.I
LEGEN]]:
EXISTING RED CURB m
PRDPDSED RED CURB , ,, ~,,
PRNPBSE>
NO PARKING ZONE
LOCATION 4~4
"EXHIBIT E"
Z
<K
N
D
VISTA
2~---17' I' ~ 4-- 17'
- ~
60'
Z27'
Z
- LEGEND:
EXISTING RED CURB
PROPOSED RED CURB
PROPOSED ND PARKING ZONE "EXHIBIT
LOCATION ~5
i,I
_
-9
RZD.
Dr-lvewcxy
Dr'ivewQy
LEGEND:
EXISTING RED CURl] m
PRDPF1SED RED CUREl ~
PR[]PBSE3 NB PARKING ZBNE 'EXHI3IT G"
LDCATIDN ~6
mmm
LEGEND:
- 108'
_'
EXISTING REI3 CURD --
PROPnSED RED CURB -
j~jCH~[3
PRDPDSED NR
CHATA PL.
_
- H
-
VISTA R~.
PA~IN~ ZnNE 'E×HIBIT
LDCATIDN ~7
Z
/
RANCHED
VISTA
LEGEND:
- EXISTING RED CURB
- PROPnSED RED
CALLE
SDNDRA
PRBPDSED ND PARKING ZDNE "EXHIBIT I'
LBCATIrlN #8
ITEM 9
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
/~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 28, 1994
SUBJECT:
Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public
Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-2.
PREPARED BY:/~Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders
to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer
Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-2,and DIRECT
the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
On October 24, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.)
4921 Birch Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
American Home Assurance Company as follows:
1. Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $93,000to cover street improvements.
2. Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $25,000 to cover water improvements.
3. Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $28,000 to cover sewer improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 379 in the amount of $73,000to cover material and labor
for street, water, and sewer improvements.
r:~agdtpt~94~O628\tr22716-2 06141a~
5. Bond No. PB 300 11 380 in the amount of $10,100 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
Effective December 31, 1993, Cosrain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture
partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, s California General Partnership
(comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor
Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). A new agreement has been executed by the
partnership and riders to the bonds in the full amount submitted for City Council acceptance.
The Surety remains the same. The riders reflect the change in principal, and obligee from
County to City.
The affected street, although not complete,d or accepted, is Corte La Puenta.
Attachments: Location Map
Riders to Faithful Performance Bonds
Substitute Agreement (on £ile)
(on file)
r:~d~t~94\0628~22716-2 06141~
__ (N~,3*4. Z'SZ*E 530./-6')
,n
V712'*Z4'37'E)
TR,~%.CT N~ .,'.2:715"! '~J' ~ ~C.5:.:5~- 5.-~
/'l°T T~ /~ ~,
TRACT NO. 22716-2
Location Map
ITEM 10
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: ~ Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJECT: Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public
Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-4.
PREPARED BY: ~/Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders
to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer
Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-4, and DIRECT
the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
On October 24, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Cosrain Homes, Inc.)
4921 Birch Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
American Home Assurance Company as follows:
1. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 9325,000to cover street improvements.
2. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 998,000to cover water improvements.
3. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 968,000 to cover sewer improvements.
4. Bond No. PB 300 11 385 in the amount of 9245,500to cover material and labor
for street, water, and sewer improvements.
5. Bond No. PB 300 11 386 in the amount of 913,800 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
r:%agdtpt\94\0628Xtr22716-4 0614/ac
Effective December 31, 1993, Costain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture
partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership
(comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor
Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). A new agreement has been executed by the
partnership and riders to the bonds in the full amount submitted for City Council acceptance.
The Surety remains the same. The riders reflect the change in principal, and in obligee from
County to City.
The affected streets, although not completed or accepted, are Corte Pergamino, Calle Jamill,
and Corte Balboa, and a portion of Rancho Vista Road and Camino Marea.
Attachments: Location Map
Riders to Faithful Performance Bonds
Substitute Agreement (on file)
(on file)
r:~d~pt\94~0628~22716-4 0614/sc
TRACT NO. 227164
Location Map
ITEM 11
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Setlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 28, 1994
Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public
Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22716-F
PREPARED BY: //~Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and riders
to Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for Street, Water, and Sewer
Improvements, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond Rider in Tract No. 22716-F, and DIRECT
the City Cterk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
On October 24, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreementswith:
Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.)
4921 Birch Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
American Home Assurance Company as follows:
2.
3.
4.
Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of $72,500to cover street improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of $16,000 to cover water improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of 81 9,000 to cover sewer improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 376 in the amount of $53,750to cover material and labor for
street, wBter, and sewer improvements.
r:~qdzpt\g4~0628~'~.2716-F 0614/a
5. Bond No. PB 300 11 377 in the amount of $6,400 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
Effective December 31, 1993, Cosrain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture
partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership
(comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor
Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). A new agreement has been executed by the
partnership and riders to the bonds in the full amount submitted for City Council acceptance.
The Surety remains the same. The riders reflect the change in principal and obligee from
County to City.
The affected street, although not completed or accepted is Corte Seda.
Attachments: Location Map
Riders to Faithful Performance Bonds
Substitute Agreement (on file)
(on file)
r:~a~drpt~94\0628~r22716-F 0614/a
,/
~\
TRACT NO. 22716-F
Location Map
ITEM 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Setlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 28,1994
Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and
Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-1.
PREPARED BY:/~Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE a sixty-five (65) percent reduction in Faithful Performance
Street, Water, and Sewer improvement bond amounts, ACCEPT the substitute Subdivision
Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-1, and
DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On May 8, 1990, the Riverside County Road Commissioner and Deputy Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors approved Tract No. 22915-1 on behalf of the City of Temecula. Subdivision
Agreements and Surety Bonds were submitted by:
Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.)
4921 Birch Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
American Home Assurance Company as follows:
2.
3.
4.
Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $2,589,000to cover street improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $128,000to cover water improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $191,000to cover sewer improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 961 in the amount of $1,454,000to cover material and labor for
street, water, and sewer improvements.
Bond No. PB 300 11 962 in the amount of $29,000 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
r:~agd~94~O628~r2291~-I 0614/ac
Effective December 31, 1993, Costain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture
partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership
(comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor
Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). The new partnership has executed a new
agreement and submitted riders to the bonds in the appropriate amounts.
Staff has inspected and verified the percentage of public improvements completed, and has
reviewed the status of water and sewer improvement with the several water districts (Eastern
Municipal Water District for sewers, Rancho California Water District for water). The Public
Works Department therefore recommends reduction of $1,890,200in Faithful Performance
Bond amounts. The remaining amount is sufficient to cover both the remaining work and
provide the minimum warranty bond level of ten (10%) of the original Faithful Performance
bond amounts.
Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows:
Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements.
$1,890,200
The subdivider is therefore submitting a Faithful Performance Bond rider in the following
reduced amount:
Streets, Water, and Sewer Improvements Bond No. PB300 11 961 $1,017,800
The subdivider is also submitting replacement bonds in the full amount for the following items:
Labor and Materials
Bond No. PB300 11 961
$1,454,000
Subdivision Monumentation Bond No. PB300 11 962
$29,000
There are no reductions or releases permitted in the Monumentation Bond or Labor and
Materials Bond until all work is completed or until the lien period following City Council
acceptance of the improvements has expired. All releases are authorized by City Council
action.
The affected streets, although not completed nor accepted, are Corte Valentine, Corte Canel,
Corte Del Cerro, Corte Camara, and Corte Montia, and a portion of Meadows Parkway, Rancho
Vista Road, Via Vistana, Via Vasquez, and Camino De La Torre.
Attachments: Location Map
Public Improvement Bond Riders
Substitute Agreement (on £ile)
r:~agdtpt~94~O628\tr22915-1 0614/ac
CAL. F_.
TRACT NO. 22915-1
Location Map
ITEM 13
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
/['~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Worlds/City Engineer
June 28, 1994
Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and
Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-F.
~/~r AIbert Crisp, Permit Engineer
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE a seventy-five
(75) percent reduction in Faithful
Performance Street, Water, and Sewer improvement bond amounts, ACCEPT the substitute
Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22915-
F, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On May 8, 1990, the Riverside County Road Commissioner and Deputy Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors approved Tract No. 22915-F on behalf of the City of Temecula. Subdivision
Agreements and Surety Bonds were submitted by:
Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Cosrain Homes, Inc.)
4921 Birch Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
American Home Assurance Company as follows:
1. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of $900,000to cover street improvements.
2. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of 937,500 to cover water improvements.
3. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of $72,500to cover sewer improvements.
4. Bond No. PB 300 11 958 in the amount of $505,000to cover material and labor for
street, water, and sewer improvements.
5. Bond No. PB 300 11 959 in the amount of $13,000 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
r:~agdrpt\94~0628~tr2291~-F 0614/~
Effective December 31, 1993, Cosrain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture
partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership
(comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor
Woodrow Real Estate,a California Corporation). The new partnership has executed a new
agreement and submitted riders to the bonds in the appropriate amounts
Staff has inspected and verified the percentage of public improvements completed, and has
reviewed the status of water and sewer improvement with the several water districts (Eastern
Municipal Water District for sewers, Rencho California Water District for water). The Public
Works Department therefore recommends reduction of $757,500in the Faithful Performance
Bond amounts. The remaining amount is sufficient to cover both the remaining work and
provide the minimum warranty bond level of ten (10%) of the original Faithful Performance
bond amounts.
Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows:
Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements.
$757,500
The subdivider is therefore submitting a Faithful Performance Bond Rider in the following
reduced amount:
Streets, Water, and Sewer Improvements Bond No. PB300 11 958 $252,500
The subdivider is also submitting bond riders in the full amount for the following items:
Labor and Materials
Bond No. PB300 11 958
$505,000
Subdivision Monumentation Bond No. PB300 11 959
$26,676
There are no releases permitted in the Monumentation Bond or reduction or release in Labor
and Materials Bond until all work is completed or until the lien period following City Council
acceptance of the improvements has expired. All releases or reductions are authorized by City
Council action.
The affected streets, although not completed nor accepted, are Corte Mendoze, and a portion
of Meadows Parkway, Rancho Vista Road, and Camino Romo.
Attachments: Location Map
Public Improvement Bond Riders
Substitute Agreement (oz~ £ile)
r:~agdrpt\94~O628~22915-F 06141g
I~}~/o
CA~.E
VISTA ROAD
TRACT NO. 22915-F
Location Map
ITEM 14
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 28, 1994
Bond Reduction and Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and
Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1.
PREPARED BY:/~"yAIbert Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE a fifty (50) percent reduction in Faithful Performance Street,
Water, and Sewer improvement bond amounts, ACCEPT the substitute Subdivision
Improvement Agreement and Public Improvement Bond Riders in Tract No. 22916-1, and
DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Developer and Surety.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 1990, the City Council approved Tract No. 22916-1, and entered into
subdivision agreements with:
Tayco (Joint Venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes & Costain Homes, Inc.)
4921 Birch Street, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
American Home Assurance Company as follows:
1. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $1,105,500to cover street improvements.
2. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $148,000 to cover water improvements.
3. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $138,500 to cover sewer improvements.
4. Bond No. PB 300 12 675 in the amount of $696,000to cover material and labor for
street, water, and sewer improvements.
5. Bond No. PB 300 13 182 in the amount of $26,676 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
r:~agdrpt~94~O628\u22916-1 06141ac
Effective December 31, 1993, Costain Homes Inc. withdrew from the joint venture
partnership. The name of the new partnership is Tayco, a California General Partnership
(comprised of Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California Corporation, and Taylor
Woodrow Real Estate, a California Corporation). The new partnership has executed a new
agreement and submitted riders to the bonds in the appropriate amounts.
Staff has inspected and verified the percentage of public improvements completed, and has
reviewed the status of water and sewer improvement with the several water districts (Eastern
Municipal Water District for sewers, Rancho California Water District for water). The Public
Works Department therefore recommends reduction of 6696,000 in the Faithful Performance
Bond amounts. The remaining amount is sufficient to cover both the remaining work and
provide the minimum warranty bond level of ten (10%) of the original Faithful Performance
bond amounts.
Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows:
Street, Water, and Sewer Improvements.
$696,000
The subdivider is therefore submitting Faithful Performance Bond Riders in the following
reduced amount:
Streets, Water, and Sewer Improvements Bond No. PB300 12 675 $696,000
The subdivider is also submitting Bond Riders in the full amount for the following items:
Labor and Materials
Bond No. PB300 12 675
$696,0O0
Subdivision Monumentation Bond No. PR300 13 182
$26,676
There are no reductions or releases permitted in the Monumentation Bond or Labor and
Materials Bond until all work is completed or until the lien period following City Council
acceptance of the improvements has expired. All releases are authorized by City Council
action.
The affected streets, although not completed nor accepted, are Corte Villosa, Via Azalea,
Corte Ruiz, and Corte Castro, and a portion of Meadows Parkway, Pauba Road, and Camino
Romo.
Attachments: Location Map
Public Improvement Bond Riders
Substitute Agreement (on file)
r:~gd~pt\94\O628~tr22916-1
4:,'..3.
-~ p/~JDA
TRACT NO. 22916-1
Location Map
ITEM 15
9['1~6\$~lO\:s
O~I 'OI '6
O~,I 'OI '6
OSI 'OI '6
O~I 'OI '6
OIl 'OI '6
130I 'Or '6
060'0I '6
080'0I '6
OLO'OI '6
090'0I '6
0~0'0I '6
0~0'0I '6
0£0'0I '6
OZO'OI '6
OIO'OI '6
'2)~ 'SIAlOO~flOOd 'S"r'IVH HDNVCI
'S!{I'lqD,T,T-ID IIq '~l{ -- SHSI~DI'I ~clS
0I'6 NHJAVHD..
:S~AOiIOj s~ ~ o~ apoD Iedp.mnIAI eIno~ma.L ~tU o~ lyapp~ ~qax~q s! ,"cUa 'stuoosIood
'sII~H ammCI 'sqnl:nq~!N 'ss~ -- s~su~o~.~ l~.o~[S, '0I '6 ~d~q;D '~ uo!laaS
st raou~CI qnlD ptre sa~treCI o.qqncI 'slIgH
~,0-06 'oN gou~.p-q3 ,C1!D ,(q ~uorajax ~Cq pmdop~ '99~ 'oN ~oueu~p.~O gaunoD ~p~.sz~A.~I
'~OLrem. plO S.II~ Jo ol~p aA.l~0OJa~ Okq II0 'SOOLrBUl-PJO/flun°D Op.lSlOA.~[ p0~qpo0-Uou
aql ~o suo.mod .u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u.u~ oouazoja Kq poldop~ 1,0-06 'oN ooueuTP. sO ~!D'I uo.q~S
:SA~OTIOd SV
NlVCIHO XS'~lf~H SHOd V'IFIDH~'~ dO .LT.TO
'lVdlD IND. BI V'ICI3~IAIStL ~ Oi J'3rs[ 'Sl~OOIr'lOOd
'S'I'lVlt 33NVa 'SSflq3 &HgtN 'SllVR--S~SN~IDr'I
'lVlDsJdS, '0I'6 ~ 9NKIdV V'Ifl3r~A~,L atO
,/~LID ~ alO qlDNflO3 .LLI3 ~ ~IO ~DNVNI(IliO NV
9I-~6 'ON ¢~;3NVMI(I'¢IO
9.10.160
9.10.170
9.10.180
9.10.190
9.10.200
9.10.210
Revocation.
Regulations: Hours of dance haIL bars. and night clubs.
Regulations: Disorderly conduct.
Prohibited conduct.
ApplicabilRy of regulations to existing business.
9.10.010 D~finitions.
A. 'Bar' ltm~n~ any establi-~hed place of business upon which alcoholic beverages.
are sold f~r consumption on the pmnises.
B. 'Dance ~SlI' means any place open to the public where dancing is participated
in, either as the main purpose of the establishment, or as incidental to some other purpose,
and to which premises the public is admitted, either with or without charge.
C. 'Established place of business' means the place where any person, finn, or
corporation conducts any retail or other establishment having a permanent address and being
regularly open for business from day to day during ordinary business bonn.
D. 'Night Club' means any eslablish~ place of b-~;ness where amplified musical
ent~iainment is offered.
E. 'Poolroom' means any place open to the public where billiards, pool, or
hagsrelic is played, except a priva~ house and except the rooms of a bona fide fraternal
orgaviT~lion, where the general public is allowed to play therein, whether any compensation
or reward is charged for the use of such tables or not.
9.10.020 License r~luire~..
It shall be unlawful for any puson, firm, or corporation to engage in, conduct,
manage, or cany on any of the following businesses, practices, professions, or occupations
within the aga of the City of Temecula without first having obtained a license therefor in
B.
C.
D.
9.10.030 Multiple businesses.
This Chapter shall apply to each and every business, trade, occupation, profession, or
practice herein enumerated and conducted in the City of Temecula, whether carried on
individually or in conjunction with any other activity.
9.10.040 Chief of police.
All licenses issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be issued by the Chief of Police.
9.10. OSO Applications.
The Chief of Police shall receive all applications for licenses and shall provide such
application forms as are necessary for the convenience of the public and the economic and
efficient administration of this Chapter.
9.10.060 Fees.
The City Council shall provide, by Resolution thereof, the mount of each fee to be
charged for each application or license or both such application and license.
9.10.070 Duration.
Each license shall be in effect for one year from the date on which it was issued.
9.10.080 Standards for consideration of license applications.
The Chief of Police shall deny the application for a license if he/she makes any of the
following findings:
A. That the applicant does not fulfill the specific requirements for such license as
set forth in this Chapter.
That the applicant has made any false or misleading statement in his/her
application.
C. That the licensed business has been operated in an illegal, improper, or
disorderly manner.
r:\ORDS~94-16 3
D. That the licensed business has been operated in a manner that is detrimental to
the public health, public morals, or public order.
9.10.090 Investigation and issuance.
Prior to issuing the license, the Chief of Police shall make such investigation as
he/she deems necessary to determine whether the applicant meets the requirements and
qualifications for such license, and shall thereafter issue a license to the applicant,
conditionally approve a license, or shall notify the applicant in writing that his/her
application is denied. The Chief of Police may consult with and ask for a recommendation
from any other City officer or department prior to the issuance of any license under this
Chapter, and shall, at the request of any City officer or department, supply such officer or
department with a copy of any such license or application therefor.
9.10.100 License.
The license and each duplicate license shall contain the date of issuance, the date of
expiration, a designation of the type of license it is, the location or locations of the licensed
activity, the signature of the Chief of Police, and such other matters as are specified in this
Chapter and as the issuing officer deems appropriate.
9.10.110 In_spection.
Every applicant or licensee shall permit the Chief of Police access to any premises
used in the conduct of the licensed business at all reasonable times, and to any records
required to be maintained by this Chapter, and the Chief of Police shall make such
inspections thereof as he/she deems necessary from time to time.
9.10.120 DiSplay of license.
Each licensee shall display his/her license or duplicate license in a prominent location
in each licensed place of business; and each licensee shall display his/her license to any
peace officer requesting to see it.
9.10.130 Multiple licenses: duplicate licenses.
Any person carrying on or conducting more than one of the businesses for which a
license is required under this Chapter shall obtain a license for each such business. Any
r:\ORDS~94-16 4
person carrying on a licensed activity at more than one place of business shall obtain a
duplicate license for cash pla~e of business.
9.10.140 Licenses not transferable.
No license issued under the terms of this Chapter shall be transferable, and no such
license shall be displayed or used in conjunction with any activity other than the licensed
business or by any person other than the licensee or his/her employee, nor at any location
other than that indicated on the license and application.
9.10.150 Temporary permits.
The Chief of Police may, in his/her discretion, upon the filing of an application for a
license pursuant to this Chapter, issue one temporary permit to conduct the business
described in the application for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days, if he/she finds that the
inability to carry on such business because of the lack of a license would cause hardship to
the applicant.
9.10.160 Revocation.
When the Chief of Police has issued any license under the terms of this Chapter, the
same may be revoked at any time thereafter by the Chief of Police ff he/she finds that:
A. The conduct of the licensed business does not or will not comport with the
public welfare;
B. The business has been conducted in an illegal, improper, or disorderly
manner, or in an manner substantially different from that described in the application; or,
C. The business is being operated in a manner for which the license application
could have been denied.
9.10.170 Anw. als.
A. Any person my appeal to the City Council the decision of the Chief of Police
to deny an application for a license or a temporary permit, or to revoke a license. Said
appeal shall be made by verified, written de~hration to the City Council, received by the
City Clerk within thirty (30) days of the Chid of Police's action. The City Council shall
hold a hearing on such appeal. Notice of the time, date, and place of said hearing shall be
mailed to the licensee or applicant at the address given in the license application at least ten
(10) days prior to the date of said hearing. For the purpose of said hearing, the City Council
may appoint any qualified hearing officer to Palre evidence offered by the applicant and the
Chief of Police concerning the denial or revocation and summarize the evidence presented
r:XORDS\94-16 5
and report his/her findings and recommendations based on such evidence to the Council, or
the Council may itself ta~ such evidence.
B. The following rules of evidence shall apply at the heaxing:
1. Oral evidence shall be fnh~n only on oath or affirmation.
2. Each party shall have these fights: To call and examine wimesses, to
introduce exhibits, to cross-examine opposing wimesses covered in the dire~t examination, to
impeach any witnesses regardless of which party first called lfim/her to testify, and rebut the
evidence agajnst him/her. If the appellant does not testify, in his/her own behalf, he/she may
be called and examined as if under cross-examination.
3. The heating need not be conducted according to technical rules relating
to evidence and wimesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the son of
evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious
affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make
improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence
may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any ~ evidence but shall not
be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it wonld be admissible over objection in civil
actions. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they are now or
hereafter may be recognized in ~ivil actions, and irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence
shall be excluded.
C. The Mayor shall, at the request of the Chief of Police or the appeilant, or theft
attorneys, issue subpoenas or subpoenas duces teeurn to compel the attendance of witnesses
and evidence at said heating.
D. The City Council shall determine, on all the evidence presente~ to it, or on the
summary of evidence and findings of fact and recommendations of the person holding the
hearing, whether said license or permit should be issued, or whether such revoked license
should be reinstated and shah direct the Chief of Police to act accordingly.
9.10.180 Regulations: Hours of danc~ hall. bars and night clubs.
It shall be unlawful for any person, assoc'mtion, or corporation to operate, participate
in, or assist in operation of dance hall, bar, or night club between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and
6:00 a.m. of any day.
9.10.190 Regulations: Disorderly conduct.
It shall.be unlawful for any person in charge of or assisting in the conducting of any
dance hall, bar, or night club to permit any intoxicated, boisterous, or disorderly person to
enter, be or remain in, or to assist in any dance hall, bar, or night club, and it shall be
r:~ORD~\94-16 6
unlawful for any person in an intoxicated condition to enter or remain in any danc~ hall, bar,
or night club for any reason to conduct himself/herself in a boisterous or disorderly manner
in such dance hall, bar, or night club.
9.10.200 Prohibited conduct.
Any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and be punished in accordance with Sections 1.20.010 and 1.20.030 A of this Cede.
Revocation or suspension of a license issued under this Chapter shall not be a defense against
prosecution.
9.10.210 Apl~licability of regulations to exig~ng business.
The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable to all persons and businesses
described herein whether the herein described a~tivities were established before or after the
effective dates of the ordinance enacting this Chapter into law. All such persons and
businesses shall have ninety (90) days from said effective date to comply with the provisions
of this Chapter. *
Section 3. SEVERABH JTY The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall
hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining pans of this Ordinance.
Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this ordinance and shall cause the same to bc posted as required by law.
Section $. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and cause copies of this ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
PASSE!}, APPROVEI} AND ADOPTED this 14 day of June, 1994.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
June S. Greek~ City Clerk
[SEAL}]
r:\ORDS~94-16 7
STATE OF CALIFO~)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 94-16 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of June, 1994, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of 199_, by the following vote, to wit:
COUNC~MBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMF/VIBERS:
ABSENT:
C OUNCILIV~MBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
r:\Ol~.D$\94-16 8
ITEM 16
ORDINANCE 94-17
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA, AMI~NDING CHAPTER 10.20 OF ~
TEMF_,CULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD WEIGHT LIMITS
ON DESIGNATED STREETS
~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES I:!ERERY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The Public/Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Tcmecula has
reviewed certain weight restrictions and forwarded their recommendations for changes to the
City Council;
SECTION 1. Section 10.20.070 of Chapter 10, Article II of the Temecula Municipal
Cede, is hereby mended to read as follows:
ARTICLE II WEIGHT LIMITS
Section:
10.20.070 Designation
10.20.070 Designation.
When signs are exected giving notice thereof, the following streets or portions of streets
are restricted to vehicles not exceeding a maximum gross weight of 6,000 pounds:
A. Callc Medusa, from La Scrcna to Nieolas Road
B. Rainbow Canyon Road from pala Road to the southern City limit
SECTION 2. Severab~ity. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty
(30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
ORD~\94-17 I
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and certified
copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five
days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance,
the City Clerk shah publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the
Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the
City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 14th day of June, 1994
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ORDS\94-17 2
STATE OF C~IJ'FORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 94-17 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the 14th day of June, 1994, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly
adopted and passed at regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of June 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: 0 COUNCILMF_.~BERS: None
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ORDS\94-17 3
ITEM 17
APPRO~.
CITY ATI'ORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
June 28, 1994
Appeal of Planning Application Nos. 93-0157 and 94-0002 (Temecula Valley
Unified School District Maintenance, Operation and Transportation Facility and
Associated Environmental Impact Report)
PREPARED BY: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT {PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 94-0002), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER
ROAD AND WEST OF THE EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180-024.
Adopt a resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TRANSPORTATION,
ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE TEMECULA
VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
R:~STAFFRPT~IYTPA93.CC 6/21/94 Idb 1
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 1994the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report (Planning
Application No. 94-0002)for Planning Application No. 93-0157 and approved Planning
Application No. 93-0157, a Conditional Use Permit, to allow the construction and operation
of a transportation, administration and maintenance facility for the Temecula Valley Unified
School District. The facility includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses
operational on-site and off-site) and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair
bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices. The project is
located north of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road. The Planning
Commission approved the project with a 3-1 vote. Chairman Ford voted against the project
and Commissioner Salyer was absent. Chairman Ford felt the site was not centrally located
within the district and would result in increased traffic. He also had a concern that the site
is within a dam inundation area.
Two nearby homeowners spoke in opposition of the project. The concerns included increased
traffic on Margarita Road, which will result in difficult turning movements to and from Rustic
Glen; the inappropriateness of the proposed use, which they felt is an industrial use and
industrial uses should be located on the west side of the freeway, not adjacent to a residential
area; the degradation of the nearby property values; unmitigated air quality and noise impacts;
and the school district's under-estimation of the ultimate number of buses which will become
necessary as the number of students increase.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Councilman Mu~oz at the May 10,
1994 City Council meeting as a result of a homeowner's (Michelle Bedard) request. She
indicated that the project should not be located in a residential area and should be built either
on the west side of the freeway or in the industrial park behind the library. Moreover, she
questioned the school district's claims that the proposed facility will be adequate for the
ultimate build-out of the district's boundary by presenting the City Council with the number
of bused students from the Poway, Vista, and Oceanside School Districts.
DISCUSSION
This project has been in the planning process since August of 1993. This lengthened review
period was necessary to insure that all of the project impacts were addressed by the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In addition, the School District desired
to receive the support of the nearby residents in the Winchester Creek and Roripaugh Hills
tracts. The school district hand delivered approximately 900 notices to the homeowners
within these two tracts inviting them to a community meeting on October 13, 1993. Only 12
people attended that meeting (refer to Attachment 4). In addition, these two tracts were
notified of the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, again with approximately 900
notices being mailed by City staff. Only two (2) homeowners were present at the Planning
Commission meeting for this project.
The school district has indicated that the number of students within the district will increase
from approximately 10,000 students to approximately 20,000 students in 10 to 15 years.
According to the school district, this facility will be sufficient to handle the increased load.
Moreover, as the student population is increased and more schools are built to serve these
students, more students will be able to walk to schools because of their closer proximity to
homes. This will reduce the need for busing.
The environmental impacts of this project including traffic, air quality and noise impacts were
analyzed in the EIR. All of these impacts were reduced to insignificant levels with the
exception of air quality, hydrology, seismic safety and land use through mitigation measures
placed on the project. In terms of air quality, the construction and grading of the project
resulted in significant unmitigatable impacts in that the amount of Nitrogen Oxide emitted into
the air was greater than the threshold set by the Air Quality Management District. Therefore,
a Statement of Overriding Consideration was prepared.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution No. 94- - Page 4
Resolution No. 94- - Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes of May 2, 1994 - Page 11
Planning Commission Staff Report of May 2, 1994 - Page 12
School District Letter, Community Meeting - Page 13
Fee Checklist - Page 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACM NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, TO ALLOW ~ CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF
A TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND MAINIY2~ANCE
FACILITY FOR ~ TEMECULA VALLEY UNWWY~ SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
W!~.REAS, Councilman Mu~oz filed an appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision
to certify the Environment~ Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002) for Planning
Application No. 93-0157 and to approve Planning Application No. 93-0157 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City
has adopted by reference;
WFIEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WIrEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on
June 14, 1994, at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support
or opposition to said Appeal; and
WIIEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, TFI'EREFORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
fmdings:
Findinv. s. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
to wit:
The City Council in denying the Appeal, makes the foliowing additional fmdings,
1. The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The
land use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park) which
encourages uses such as: light manufacturing, research and development, wholesale business,
professional offices, storage and industrial supply.
R:\$TAFFRFI~I57PA93.CC 618/94
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 1994.
RON ROBFITS
MAYOR
ATrP_~T:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAIJFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF 'r/~,MECULA)
I FtF. RF. Ry 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 14th day of June,
1994 by the following vote of the Council:
COUNCMF/~S
NOES:
COUNCMERS
COUNCMERS
JUNE S. GRg]~K
CITY CT.RRK
ATtrACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONM~,NTAL IMPACT REPORT
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0002), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF
FACT AND STATEMI~NTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVING ~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WINCWESTER ROAD AND WEST
OF TFfF~ EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180-024.
Wltl~.REAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
(Planning Application No. 94-0002) in accordance with the Riverside County, City of Temecula
and State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, said ~ application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said EIR on June 14, 1994, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREM, at the conclusion of the City Council hearing, the City Council Certified
said ErR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and
Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, TI:!~.RI~.i~ORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin~,s. That the City of Temecula City Council in Certifying the
proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), makes the foilowing findings, to wit:
A. Reference Attachment 5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report, Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby certifies FEIR
(Planning Application No. 94-0002), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Consideration and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program on 6.64 acres of land located
north of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor' s
Parcel No. 911-180-024.
Section 3. PASS~r}, APPROW. r} AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 1994.
ATI'/~;T:
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I FrF, REBY 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 14th day of June,
1994 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILIV[EMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEVIBERS
JUNE S. GR~-RK
CITY CL~-RK
ATFACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 2, 1994
R:',$TAFFRF~157PA9~.CC 6///94 lab 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS:
PA93-O157 AND PA94-0002
Salyer
MAY 02. 1994
Request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and
operation of a transportation, administration and maintenance facility for the
Temecula Valley Unified School District. The facility includes storage of school
buses and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair
shops for maintenance operations and administrative offices. Located north of
Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road.
Associate Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M.
Dave Callaher, Director of Facilities Development, Temecula Valley Unified School
District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, provided the Commission With an
overview of the project.
Michelle Bedard, 39857 Knollridge Drive, Temecula, expressed her concern with the
traffic on Winchester Road presently and the impacts the project will have on the
already heavily traveled Winchester Road. Ms. Bedard said she uses Rustic Glen to
get to her personal residence and a signal is needed at Rustic Glen and Winchester
Road to help get the cars out onto Winchester Road safely.
Bruce Weckesser, 27441 Bolandra Court, Temecula, said he feels the proposed use
is incompatible with the area. Mr. Weckesser said he feels the bus facility is more
compatible with an industrial location.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill said an E.I.R. was completed on the project and
staff feels all the issues have been addressed regarding this site and the proposed
project.
Douglas Wood, the environmental consultant for the school district, explained the
noise and air quality testing.
Chairman Ford questioned Condition No. 7, which talks about parking spaces for
visitors and requested the condition stipulate "Visitor Only" and be designated on
site as such. Chairman Ford also asked for clarification of Condition No. 11.
Commissioner Fahey suggested the language in Condition No. 11 be amended to
state "...29 buses operating on-site...".
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the
public hearing at 8:55 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-08 certifying the
Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 94-0002) for Planning
PCMIN05/O211994 7 05111
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 02.1994
Application No. 93-0157; and Adopt Resolution No. 94-07 8pproving Planning
Application No. 93-0157, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
staff report and amend Condition No. 7 to designate "Visitor' parking spaces and
amend Condition No. 11 to clarify '....29 buses shall be operating on-site ..... '.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoegland
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer
Chairman Ford said he opposed the motion based on the number of buses and the
PLANN P
Director Commission the first meeting in June held at the
Bancho California Room.
Director Thornhill said the Old Review Board has re-appointed.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCU
Chairman Ford advised he received a
standards at the Senior Center, which will
standards.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Ford declared the ourned at
The nex~ regular meeti of the City of Temecula
23, 1994, 6:00 P.M t Vail Elementary SChool, 29915
Ca' '. '
to Mr. Bill Harker regarding the light
!ed to comply with the Old Town
P.M.
Commission will be held on May
Drive, Temecula,
an Steve Ford
Secretary
PCMIN05/O~1914
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - MAY 2, 1994
R:~STAFFRF~I57PA93.CC 6/7/94
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Planning Application No. 93-0157 and 94-0002
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- certifying the
Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No.
94-0002) for Planning Application No. 93-0157; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving Planning
Application No. 93-0157, based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temecula Valley Unified School District
REPRESENTATIVE:
BGRP Architecture and Planning and Douglas Wood and
Associates
PROPOSAL:
A request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the construction and operation of a transportation,
administration and maintenance facility for the Temecula
Valley Unified School District and certify the
Environmental Impact Report for the project. The facility
includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29
buses operational) and maintenance vehicles, fuel and
wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for
maintenance operations and administrative offices.
LOCATION:
North of Winchester Road and west of the extension of
Roripaugh Road
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R:\STAFFRPT~15?PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl
PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Business Park
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Building Area: 24,399
Service Bays: 6
Landscape Area: 19,870
Hardscape Area: 235,227
Total: 279,496
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet(6.6 acres)
Visitor Parking Provided: 10 spaces
Off Site Employee Parking Provided: 100 spaces
Bus Storage: 40 spaces
Maintenance Vehicle Storage: 74 spaces
BACKGROUND
This project was formally submitted to the Planning Department on July 23, 1993. The
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 12, 1993. The
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) went through four Screen Check reviews before the Draft
EIR was sent to the State Clearing House on February 22, 1994 for a 45 day public comment
period.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Transportation, Administration
and Maintenance Facility will contain a total of 24,399 interior square feet for various
transportation, administration and maintenance activities. Space will also be provided for 40
school buses and 74 maintenance vehicles as well as a fuel and wash island for District
vehicles.
The transportation portion of the facility will involve 10,863 square feet of space for six bus
repair bays with associated repair and storage areas. Surrounding the transportation portion
of the facility are the 40 bus parking stalls. The transportation functions will operate between
the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with 29 buses generally departing and returning
between 7:00 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
R:\$TAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 2
Landscape Plans
The planters along the eastern and southern property lines are located outside the property
lines. The project has been conditioned to obtain easements for this property and will be
responsible for maintaining the landscaping for this area. The main objective of the landscape
plan is to provide visual screening of the facility and the wall from the adjacent uses. To
screen the facility, Brachychiton Populneus (Bottle Tree) has been proposed on the east, west
and south property lines which has moderate growth to 30-50 feet high and 30 foot spread.
To screen the wall, Rhaphiolepis Indica (India Hawthorn), a fast growing shrub to five (5) feet
high and wide, and Clytostoma Callistegioides (Violet Trumpet Vine), a vigorous climber vine,
will be used to screen the wall.
ReQuired Parkine
The proposed facility will be used almost exclusively by the School District personnel with few
visitors to the site; therefore, only ten (10) parking spaces have been provided for visitors. All
employees will park their vehicles in the parking facility that will be built for the Chaparral High
School where one hundred (100) spaces have been provided (refer to Exhibit H). This parking
lot will be completed with the Roripaugh and Nicolas Road extensions prior to occupancy of
the project. The School District expects the number of employees at the site to be 96 and this
number should grow to 116 by year 2010.
Area Compatibility
The land uses immediately adjacent to the site are currently vacant. The adjacent properties
to the east and south are designated in the General Plan as BP (Business Park). The General
Plan states the typical permitted uses for this designation include professional offices, research
and development, laboratories, manufacturing, storage , industrial supply, and wholesale
businesses. Santa Gertrudis Creek borders the site to the west and the proposed Chaparral
High School is to the north. Therefore, the proposed use will be compatible with the uses
immediately adjacent to the site.
The single-family residences exist further to the northwest across the creek and to the east
across Winchester Road. The proposed site is lower than the existing single family
development to the east and northwest. With future construction of the high school and the
Business Park parcel adjacent to Winchester Road and Margarita Roads, the view to the site
will be blocked by these structures. However, to further minimize the view impacts until these
structures are constructed, the project proposes a landscape planter with trees to screen the
facility from these homes.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing zoning for the site is R-R (Rural Residential). This project is permitted in this zone
provided that a conditional use permit is granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28
of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan land use designation for the site is B-P (Business
park). The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan.
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/211194 edl 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study was completed for the project by planning staff which indicated that there
would be potentially significant impacts with the development of the project. Consequently,
staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project.
Environmental Impact Report No. 94-0002 was prepared by the applicant's consultant,
Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the
significance of all the major impacts. By certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, the
Planning Commission adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Following is a summary of these impacts which have
been mitigated to insignificant levels by the mitigation measures unless otherwise specified
that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared:
SEISMIC SAFETY
The proposed project will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar Fault alignment
which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project.
Due to the content of on-site soils and the depth of groundwater, secondary seismic hazards
such as liquefaction, if any, that may occur will be confined to the relatively thin zones of
deep saturated soils. Any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is considered insignificant and
is not anticipated to cause damage or collapse of on-site structures.
According to project grading plans, the developed project will be at an elevation of 1076 feet
above mean sea level, 11 feet below the estimated elevation of water in the event of a breach
of Skinner Reservoir Dam. Since the project site lies within the dam inundation area for
Skinner Reservoir Dam, it may be subject to seismically induced flooding from dam failure.
This is considered to be an unavoidable adverse impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted by the Planning Commission (refer to Attachment 5).
SLOPES & EROSION
Development of the project will require alteration of the existing natural landform. Complete
removal of all alluvial, topsoil, and loose compressible low strength older alluvium, and/or
disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills.
According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in an estimated 30,700
cubic yards of cut and 85,300 cubic yards of fill. This results in a grading imbalance of
approximately 56,600 cubic yards. The additional fill, according to the project engineer, is
required in order to raise the proposed structures out of the 100 year floodplain.
Due to the content of on-site soils and site's proximity to Santa Gertrudis Creek, slope erosion
is a concern with regard to surficial stability. In addition, landscaped slopes along the project
perimeter will be provided, if necessary. Drainage and erosion control measures shall be
established at the time of final grading and maintained throughout the life of the project in
order to provide long-term slope stability and performance.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 5
The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) currently administer the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations. NPDES permits
are issued by the state under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
selected industries, construction activities and municipalities. The proposed project will be
required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit as well
as any permit issued by the City of Temecula.
NOISE
Short-Term Impacts
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated
by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators can reach high levels. When construction occurs adjacent to existing residential
development, the hours of construction will be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through
Friday. Construction will not be permitted on weekends or federal holidays.
School Bus Noise Impacts
The primary noise concerns associated with the proposed project will be the school bus
operations. Other noise within the facility will be secondary. Potential noise impacts on
adjacent residences due to the school buses operating out of the proposed site also were
assessed.
In order to provide an accurate assessment of noise levels attributed to bus start-up, start-up
noise levels were recorded from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on July 29, 1992. According to the
measurements, the noise levels attributed to bus operations will be lower than the ambient
noise levels at the three measurement sites which were located adjacent to existing single
family residences. Noise levels at these locations provide a "worst-case" assessment of noise
impacts of the project upon adjacent residential land uses. At these three locations, the bus
start-up noise levels will meet the day-time model noise criteria without mitigation measures.
Project Traffic Noise Impacts
The proposed project will also generate traffic, and as a result may alter projected noise levels
in the surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent
to streets that will serve the project, the change in roadway noise along the streets was
determined. Due to future development which has already been approved there will be an
increase in traffic in the surrounding area with or without the proposed project. In community
noise assessment changes, noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant,
while changes less than I dBA will not be discernible to local residents. The future 1994
noise levels will not increase substantially over existing noise levels (less than 3 dBA for the
roadways serving the project).
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.pC 4/28/94 KII 6
AIR QUALITY
Short Term Impacts
Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be
emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site
preparation. Only nitrogen oxide emissions exceed SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance, per
the Final Draft 1991 CEQA Air Quality handbook. This is considered to be a short-term but
an unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted by the Planning Commission.
Long-Term Impacts
Local Carbon Monoxide Impacts from School Bus Operations
Potential air quality impacts from the proposed bus start ups were assessed through a CO
monitoring effort at four sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. CO concentrations
were monitored on July 29, 1992 at Sites 1 through 4 from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. for
conditions with school bus engines running.
The data indicates that there is no significant increase in CO concentration for conditions with
the buses running compared to conditions without the school buses running. Therefore,
school bus operations at the Transportation/Maintenance Facility will not generate a significant
increase in CO concentrations at Measurement Sites.
The air quality consultant who performed the CO monitoring on July 29 and 30, 1992 has
indicated that diesel odors were not noticeable during the on-site monitoring procedures.
Given the distance from the pollutant source to sensitive receptors (adjacent residential land
uses and the future high school) and staggered bus start-up times, in contrast to the
simultaneous start-ups which occurred during the on-site tests, long term impacts associated
with diesel odors resulting from the project are not considered significant.
CIRCULATION
Project Access
The proposed project is planned to take its primary access from Margarita Road opposite the
existing entry to Costco until the future Chaparral High School is constructed. At that time,
the interim access onto Margarita Road will be closed and the proposed project will take direct
permanent access onto Winchester Road opposite Roripaugh Road. According to the Traffic
Engineer, the proposed project will not change the level of service on any of the intersections
that were analyzed except at the interim access intersection at the Margarita Road/Costco
entry. The proposed project changes the level of service at that intersection from C to E
during the evening peak hour as a result of school bus, maintenance vehicle and employee
traffic. Therefore, a four way Stop Sign will be installed by the project.
R:~$TAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 7
Level of Service in Study Year
Since traffic generated by the proposed project will not result in a level of service change at
any of the intersections which were analyzed, traffic impacts associated with the proposed
project are not considered significant. The intersections of Winchester Road/Nicolas Road and
Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road are currently operating at Level of Service "F" during the
evening peak hour and the existing volumes meet the warrants for signalization. Project
impacts on existing traffic levels at the Winchester Road/Nicolas Road and Winchester
Road/Roripaugh Road intersections are 3.4 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively. The School
District will transfer the existing Maintenance Operations and Transportation facility from its
Rancho Vista Road site to the proposed site. Therefore, the level of activity at the new site
will be the same as the existing site (which is somewhat less than the ultimate development
that was used to estimate ultimate project traffic in the Traffic Analysis) and there will not be
a net increase in areawide traffic.
HYDROLOGY
The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces
(parking lots, bus storage areas, roofs, etc.) on-site that will increase the existing storm runoff
to Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. The developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream
surface flows, will be adequately conveyed by the proposed on-site drainage system.
Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the Santa
Gertrudis Creek and ultimately into Murrieta Creek. This incremental increased flow rate will
contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in
areas with undersized facilities. Since the project site lies within a dam inundation area for
the Skinner Reservoir Dam, it may be subject to seismically induced flooding from dam failure.
This is considered to be an unavoidable adverse impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted by the Planning Commission.
WATER QUALITY
Construction of the proposed project will alter the composition of surface runoff by the grading
of site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, parking lots, service areas, and roofs, and
by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor
amounts of pollutants typical of most urban uses, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil, rubber
residue, detergents, hydrocarbons, and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, will
contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in Santa Gertrudis and
Murrieta Creeks.
All parking and bus storage areas within the proposed project will drain into a clarifier which
provides three stage treatment for surface runoff. This clarifier will insure adherence to
NPDES requirements. Eastern Municipal Water District will monitor the quality of runoff from
these paved surfaces.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 8 '
RISK OF UPSET
The proposed project may involve the storage and use of hazardous materials. As such, the
project has the potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances.
The use of these hazardous or toxic substances is governed by OSHA standards and the
County Health Department criteria. In the event of an accidental upset of toxic materials on
the project site, the School District is equipped to handle toxic material spills with equipment
being used or stored on-site. In the event of such an episode, storm drains could be
temporarily blocked in order to contain the spill and avoid drainage into downstream areas.
CULTURAL & SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
No archaeological resources have been found on-site. The surface alluvial deposits found on-
site are sediments laid down by streams that flowed across the region within the last 10,000
years. These sediments are considered to be too young geologically to contain any significant
fossils. Considering its past history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation underlying these
surface alluvial deposits is considered to have a Moderate to High paleontological sensitivity.
WILD LIFE & VEGETATION
Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to accommodate the
proposed project will reduce areawide introduced grassland habitat for raptors. However, the
area is not considered to be of high significance in this regard. The same holds true for the
loss of habitat supporting other grassland species of wildlife. Development of the proposed
project will not result in the loss of occupied Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) habitat.
LAND USE
The proposed land uses are in conformance with the City of Temecula General Plan
designation of BP (Business Park} if a Conditional Use Permit is approved in accordance with
Ordinance No. 348. The project applicant has submitted an application for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (PA93-0157).
The change in land use resulting from project development will not result in significant impacts
to agriculture as agricultural activity on-site has been discontinued. However, project
implementation will result in urban development on "Prime" soils which is considered a
significant impact of project development. According to the California Department of
Conservation, the loss of any "Prime" agricultural land is considered a significant impact for
which a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the planning Commission.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
These functions may involve the storage and use of hazardous material. As such, the project
has the potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances. The
use of these hazardous or toxic substances is governed by Occupational Safety and Health
Administration lOSHAl, Cal OSHA, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and
County Health Department criteria. Potentially hazardous substances to be found and utilized
in the proposed Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility include fuels, greases and
oils, and cleaning solvents, adhesives, paints, automobile parts (brakes, batteries, antifreeze,
etc.)
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 9
According to the Temecula Valley Unified School District, employees are given general training
in the handling of potentially hazardous materials. In addition, employees whose duties
include the handling of any identified hazardous material are given specialized training in the
handling of that substance.
in the event of a hazardous material spill, the School District would be equipped to handle
toxic or hazardous material spills with equipment being used or stored on-site. In the event
of such an episode, on-site storm drains can be temporarily blocked in order to contain the spill
and avoid drainage into downstream areas.
AESTHETICS/LIGHT & GLARE
Project development will permanently alter the nature and appearance of the 6.64 acre project
site from its current open space use to the land uses proposed. According to the Landscape
Concept Plan, the project site will be surrounded on three sides by street trees, accent trees
and shrubs which are intended to provide an aesthetic buffer between the fully-developed
project site and surrounding areas, including Winchester Road. View Analyses from the North
and South, respectively, provide graphic representation of the future appearance of the project
site with development of the proposed structures. The site itself does not contain nor will
proposed development block any scenic vistas which merit preservation.
MitiQation MonitorinQ Prooram
The Draft Environmental Impact Report includes the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as a Condition of Approval for
the project as a whole with several of the mitigations being separate Conditions of Approval
for the project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed use is appropriate for the site since the Environmental Impact Report has
proposed mitigation measures that reduce all the impacts of the project to an insignificant level
with the exception of short term air quality impacts associated with the construction of the
project, hydrology and seismic safety impacts associated with the location of the site within
the Dam Inundation area of Skinner Reservoir Dam, and land use impacts associated with the
removal of Prime Agricultural land.
The site will complement the proposed high school and is centrally located within the school
district boundaries.
FINDINGS
The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use
designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park).
The provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 allow for construction and operation
of this project provided that a conditional use permit is granted.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28194 sdl 10
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community, In addition, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this
project mitigates all significant impacts of proposed project to an insignificant level with
the exception of Hydrology, Seismic Safety, Air Quality and Land Use impacts for
which Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared. Mitigation
measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
planning application (conditional use permit), as conditioned, complies with the
standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way via an easement which
is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a
publicly maintained road (Margarita Road).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
PC Resolution 94- - Blue Page 12
PC Resolution 94- - Blue Page 15
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 19
Exhibits - Blue Page 33
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Landscape Plan
E. Elevations
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
H. Over All Site Plan
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - Blue Page 34
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 35
Public Comments- Blue Page 36
Response to Public Comments - Blue Page 37
R:~STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT fPLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 94-0002), ADOFrING FINDINGS OF
FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING OF THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST
OF ~ EXTENSION OF RORII'AUGH ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180024.
WttEREAS, Doughs Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
(Planning Application No. 94.0002) in accordance with the Riverside County and State CEQA
Guidelines;
W!tF~REAS, said I:~R application was processed in the time and manner proscribed by
State and local law;
WH~REAS, the Planning Commission considered said EIR on May 2, 1994, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
Wt~RF_AS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning
Commission Certified said h'TR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, TFI~.REPORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMIgSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in recommending
Certification of the proposed FEIR, makes the following findings, to wit:
A. Attachment 5 of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby certifies
FEIR (Phnning Application No. 94-0002), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on 6.64 acres of hind located
noah of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 911-180-024.
Section 3. PASS!~J~, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 2nd day of May, 1994.
R:\$TAFFRP'T~157PA93.pC 412BI94 edl 13
STHVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I I:IF~RI~,Ry CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular me~ting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONFA~:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-IILL
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4129194 sdl 1~·
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.pC 4/28/94 sdl 15
ATIYACI-D~NT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A REQUEST TO
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A
CONDITIONAL USE PF_ABlff TO AIJOW ~
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND
MAINTENANCE FACHATY FOR ~ TEMECULA
VALLEY UNWIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. ~ FACILITY
INCLUDES STORAGE OF SCHOOL BUSES (WITH NO
MORE THAN 29 OPERATIONAL AT ANY GIVEN TIME)
AND MAINTENANCE VI~HCLES, FUEL AND WASH
ISLANDS, BUS REPAIR BAYS, REPAIR SHOPS FOR
MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES LOCATED NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD
AND WEST OF ~ EXTENSION OF ROR1PAUGH ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCI~J. NO. 911-180-024
WItF~REAS, The Temecula VaLley Unified School District fried Planning Application
No. 93-0157 (PA 93-0157) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WItEREAS, PA 93-0157 and was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered PA 93-0157 on May 2, 1994, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an
opponuhity to teslify either in support or in opposition;
W!tF, REAS, at the public hearing, upon heating and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to PA 93-0157;
NOW, TFI!~itl~.I~ORE, TFFF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findines. That the Temecuh Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,pC 4/28/94 sdl 16
1. The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use
designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park).
The provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 allow for construction and operation of
this project provided that a conditional use permit is granted.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Govermnental Code Section
65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this
project mitigates all significant impacts of proposed project to an insignificant level with
the exception of Hydrology, Seismic Safety, Air Quality and Land Use impacts for which
Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared. Mitigation measures have
been included in the Conditions of Approval.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape
of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning
application (conditional use permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards
contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way via an easement which is
open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly
maintained road (lVlargafita Road).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and heroin incorporated by reference.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project
by Planning staff which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts with the
development of the project. Consequently, staff determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 94-0002 was
prepared by the applieant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed
by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the fmal ~ that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of Seismic Safety, Climate and Air Quality, Hydrology and
Land Use for which Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been
included within the final I~R. Therefore, the City of Temecula Certifies the Final
Environmental Impact Report (PA 94-0002) which includes the Draft EIR, the Response to
Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl I 7
Considerations, the Staff Report and any associated attachments, and fmds that it has ,been
completed in compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecuia Planning Commission hereby
approves PA 93-0157 to allow the construction and operation of a transportation, administration
and maintenance facility for the Temecuia Valley Unified School District. The facility includes
storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and
maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus rapair bays, repair shops for maintenance
operations and administrative offices located at North of Winchester Road and west of the
extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-180-024, subject to the
following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ltEREIIy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNttll
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 18
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 19
A I I ACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA93-0157, (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description: Maintenance, Operations and Transportation facilities for
the Temecula Valley Unified School District which includes storage of school
buses (with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and
maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for
maintenance operations and administrative offices
Assessor's Parcel No.: 911-180-024
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers
check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred Fifty
Dollars ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollar ($78.00) County
administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required
under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check
required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by
reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA93-
0157 is for the Maintenance, Operations and Transportation facility for the
Temecula Valley Unified School District which includes storage of school buses
(with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and
maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for
maintenance operations and administrative offices.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula,
its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set
aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 20
8.
9.
10.
11.
agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Planning Application No.
PA93-0157. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee
of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within one (1) year of the approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the one ( 1 ) 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 the Exhibits
approved with Planning Application No. PA93-0157, or as amended by these
conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit(s) marked I,
or as amended by these conditions. (color elevations and material board).
Materials Colors
Exterior: Concrete Tilt Up
Stucco
Roof: Metal
Windows: Aluminum
Doors: Metal
Glass: Glass
Natural (Type A) and Suntan (Type B),
Light Gray (CM 8592)
Jade Green (AEP Span)
Green/Blue (CM 8684)
Taupe (CM 8453)
Light Reflective Silver (VA 1-13)
Ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided.
A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be prowded.
Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR PA94-
0002, Attachment No. 6).
If the number of school buses is increased at a future time to more than twenty
nine (29), the School District shall receive Planning Director approval to access
the additional traffic, air quality and noise impacts associated with the
additional buses.
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/2il/94 ,dl 21
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required
by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed
for development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
13.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied
by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown consistent with the approved
conceptual plans.
15.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage or a Sign Program shall be
submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
17. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground
view.
18.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans.
19. The temporary access road slopes shall be hydroseeded and irrigated. The
Hydroseed mix shall be approved by the Planning Director.
20.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be
in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be
healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be
properly constructed and in good working order.
21.
The applicant shall obtain easements for the landscape planters located outside
the property along the eastern and southern property lines. The applicant shall
be responsible to maintain these planters until the parcel(s) immediately to the
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 22
22.
east and south of the site are developed.
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 if 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 inches, 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 telephone
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
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.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning
to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with
the approved construction plans, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for
one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning.
The parking lot adjacent to Roripaugh Road for Chaparral High School shall be
installed.
A performance bond shall be secured to ensure the removal of the temporary
access road after the completion of the Winchester Road widening project. The
amount of this bond shall be determined by the Planning Director.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
R:%STAFFRPT%157PA93.pC 4/28194 edl 23
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
28.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 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.
29.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the
Temecula Code.
30. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in
compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
31. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan
review.
33. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibility regulations.
34. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
35.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions
of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
36.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on
plans submitted for plan review.
37.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff
person of the Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all
existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 adl 24
further review and revision.
General Requirements
38.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road
right-of-way.
39.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
40.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic
and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any
permit.
41.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
42. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits:
43.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent
(NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
44.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
State of California Water Resources Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 25
45.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these
Conditions of Approval.
46.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
47.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by
a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
48.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the
grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
49.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review.
50.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and
shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion
control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works.
51.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District is required for work within their right-of-way.
52.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or
mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge
needs to be paid.
53.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements
for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department
of Public Works.
54.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall
include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures
by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of
R:\STAFFI~l~157PA93.PC 4/28/94
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood
hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and
floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property.
A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement
shall be delineated on the precise grading plan.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing
onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits
the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity,
or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall
provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone "A"
and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any
plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula
and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood
Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps
related to the subject property.
The extension of Roripaugh Road, west of Winchester Road, shall be a private
road. Roripaugh Road shall be designed, and approved by the Department of
Public Works, with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 110,
An offset cul-de-sac shall be designed, and approved by the Department of
Public Works, at the terminus of Roripaugh Road in accordance with City
Standard 600(A). Along the portion where no curb and gutter are proposed,
temporary A.C. berm shall be installed at the exterior curve to accommodate
positive drainage.
The Temporary Access Road shall be designed, and approved by the
Department of Public Works, with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 ~¢1l 27
62. Six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the Temporary Access
Road and Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401,
63.
64.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters to an
adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works.
Private roads MUST be designed, reviewed, and approved by the Department
of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise approved by
the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be limited to:
Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City
Standards (200 feet minimum).
Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required in accordance
with City standard 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of
Public Works (all centerline radii shall be identified on the site plan).
90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located
a minimum safe distance from intersections.
Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so,
configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Department of
Public Works.
e. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°).
All driveways providing access to two or more buildings shall be
designed as a cul-de-sac or a loop road.
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site
in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the
improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works.
All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or
as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Private Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing
existing topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb
and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 28
65.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
Department of Public Works. Traffic shall remain open at all times and the
traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during construction.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits:
66.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
67.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by
a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works
shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment
Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities
within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works.
68.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans
and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public
Works:
a. Driveways shall conform to the City Standard No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and handicap ramps shall be constructed along public
street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400, 401, and
402.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections
and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and
visibility.
69.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Roripaugh Road, Margarita
Road, and the Temporary Access Road and shall be included in the
improvement plans.
70.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private
improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
R:\$TAFFRPT%157PA93.PC 4/28/94
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement,
curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
d. Sewer and domestic water systems
e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans
f. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
g. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit:
71.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
72. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been
submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
73. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works
74.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
75. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
76.
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the
adjacent property.
77.
The Developer shall notify the City's Cable T.V. Franchises of the intent to
develop. Conduit shall be installed to Cable T.V. Standards prior to issuance
of Certificate of Occupancy.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/29/94 edl 30
Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy:
78.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
79.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior
public/private streets, signing, and striping as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
80. The extension of Roripaugh Road, west of Winchester Road, shall be
constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 110.
81. An offset cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Roripaugh Road in
accordance with City Standard 600(A).
82. The Temporary Access Road shall be constructed.
83. Six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the Temporary Access Road
and Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
84.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event
the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in
the Subdivision Map Act, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City for the acquisition of such easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to
Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
85. Dedicate a 36 foot wide easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles
access for all private streets and drives.
86.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or
broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or
removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT%35?PA93.pC 4/28/94 .dl ::31
87.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies
and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
88.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 4, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
89.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 3,
1993, a copy of which is attached.
90.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittal dated August 12, 1993, a copy of
which is attached.
91.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water district transmittal dated August 16, 1993, a copy of which
is attached.
92.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
Water transmittal dated March 22, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4128/94 gall 32
KENNEIH L. FDWARD~S
GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
A :R O 5 lSSz
Ans'd ............
comme~ts/recomrrtend~iorts for such c~ses ere nc~naily liffgted to P, errm of ~ lme~est to ~e Di~,dct tnd',4~'~J District Ma,~e~ Dr~na~s Ram
facilities, other regional flood corrd'd and drainage facilities which cuuid be conaidered a logical ~ Or extension of 8 master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Ran fees (development rnitigmion fees). In addition, information of at generai nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following chedmd comments do not in any way constitute or imply District
approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard. public health and safety or any other such issue:
F'~This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Ran facilities nor are other facilities of regional imerest proposed.
FIT his project involves District Master PIon facilities. The District will ~ ownership of such facilities on writton request of the City. Fadlitias
must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District su-y.~ptance. Ran check,
inspedion and administrative fees will be required.
"'}This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other fadlitias that could be cunaldered regional in natu,
and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The District would oonsider accepting
ownership of such fadlities on writton request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan chedx and
inspection will be required for District ~__,'Jc~ptance. Ran Check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
"}This projed is located within the limits of frm District's .~'ea Drainage Ran for which drainage
fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid to the Rood Control District or City prior to ~nai approval of the project, or in the
of a parcel map or subdivision prior to recordation of the final map. Fees to be paid sinould be at the rate in effect at the time of recordation,
or if deferred, st the tim of issuance of the actual permit.
GFNERAI INFORMATION
This projed may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Stme Water Resources Control Board.
Clearance for grading, reoordstion, or other final approval, should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a
permit or is shown to be exempt.
ff this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require lhe applicant to
provide ail studies, calculations, plans and other informmion required to meet FEMA requirements, and should ftalhor require that The applicant
obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, reconJatton er other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603
Agreement from the California Depaxlrnent of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, or writtan correspondence from these agehales indicating the I~ect is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section
404 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regionai Wstar Quality Contrd Board prior to issuance of the Corps
404 permit.
_,~0~E, DUSTY WII IIAM$
.st.:
'~ I ,~ ,.t
~ C'rlrEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 * (909) 657-3183
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
Temecula Planning
Soled Naaseh
PA93-0157
Department
August 3, 199:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refer-
enced plot plan, the Fire Dedartment recommends the following
fire protection measures be 0rovided in accordance with Riverside
County Ordinances and/or recognized fire 0rotection standarOs:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire
· ~=].ow for tlne remodel or construction of all com~rlerciai
buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 2250 GF'M for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hy-
drants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2 1/2"x2 i/2"), will be
located not less than 25 feet or more than ~65 feet from any
portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
4. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets
and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They
shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in
line with fire hydrants.
5. The required fire flew may be adjusted at a later point
in the permit process to reflect changes in design, con-
struction type, area separation or built-in fire protection
r~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501
(909) 275-4777 * FAX (909) 369-7451
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
PLANNING SECTION
71 INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, lndio, CA 92201
(619) 863-8886 · FAX (619) 863-7072
~ivstem 01ans to the Fire Department for review. Plans snail
czenmerm t~ the fire hydraFit types, location and spacing, anO
ti~E system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans
shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification: "I
certify that the design of the water system is in accordance
with the requirements Orescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department".
7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all build-
ings. The post indicator valve and fire department conneE-
t:ion shall be located to the front, within 50 feet Gf a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A
statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire
sprinkled must be included on tl~e title page of the Ouilding
plans.
E;. A0plicant/developer shall be responsible to install a
fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Demartment for approval prior to installation.
9. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sorlnklered must apprear on ~he title page of the building
plans.
i0. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uni-
...... Building Code, Section 503.
i'-. F"rior to final impsection of any building, the appii-
.cant shall prepare an~ submit to the Fire Depart,pent for
appro~;ai, a site plan designating required fire lanes with
appropriate lane painting and or signs.
12. install portable fire e;.~tinguishers with a minimum
~'.-'~ ..... ~ 2Ai'BC. Conicact a certified extincluisher company
, ,:, .....,~.~ o~
· for proper placement of equipment.
.13. Applicanb/de~'eloper shall be responsible for obtaining
underground or aboveground permits from both the Ceunty
i4, F'rior to the issuance of building permits, the appli-
cant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or
money order in 'the amount of S558.00 to the Riverside County
Fire Department for plan check fees. Please reference Plan
Check Number with remittance.
~5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the develoo-
er shall demosit, with the City of Temecula, a check or
money order equaling the sum of $.25 per square foo~ as
mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be
submitted semarately 'from the plan check fees.
_~.. Final concitrons will me addressed when ~u~iding
are reviewed ~n ~he building and Safety Office.
Mil ~uestions regarding ~he meaning of conditions shall
ferred to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
by,2~~
Laura Cabral,
Fire Safety Specialist
Fire Captain Specialist
plans
De re-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DFPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNAP33INO, CA 92402
TDD (909) 383-4609
August 12, 1993
Development Review
08-Riv-79-R3.45~
Your Reference:
PA 93-0157
RECEIVED
AUG ! 8 1993
Ans'd ............
Mr. Saied Naaseh
Planning Department
City of Temecula
City Hall
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Planning Application 93-0157 located northerly of Highway 79
(Winchester Road}, between Margarita Road and Roripaugh Road in
Temecula.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments
have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only.
Final approval of street improvement, grading and drainage will
be determined during the Encroachment Permit process.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Ahmad
Salah of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-5908.
Very truly yours,
G.A. LUNT
Branch Chief
Development Review
C__RT.T!cUL'qS DIrf~T.,OPN~I'fi' iiEV'r~f .!ORX
~QUR REFERENCE
PlAN CHEC3~R
WE B.BQTT~BT 'I~/T THE ZTT, XB ~C~D BE~W BE
APPRO~ FOR ~18 ~E~:
N~L RIGHT OF ~Y D~I~TI~ T0 ~EDE
__ ~RB AND ~TER~ STATE $TAB~ X87
PROVIDE TO APPLICANT
( Co RTE PM)
INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF
HALF--UIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHVAY.
HALF'VIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHVAY .
· TYPE ~2-8 ALONG THE STATE HIGHkRAY.
PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHkAY ST THE PROPER PLACEPENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS,
__ 35 FT RADIUS CURB RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS VITH THE STATE H1GHVAY, STATE STANDARD
NBP A88 ~ C]IkSF..-Z/~, VHEELCHAIR RANPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHkAY
DESIGN NANUSLp SECTION 105.4 (2).
A POSITIVE VEHZCULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE
STATE HIG~AdAY.
VEHZCULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVEL(~PED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHkAY.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGINAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS,
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHVAT SHALL BE PitOVIDED BY STANDARD DttV~qdAYS.
VENII~Lj~_k'r~e~J.L IxYr BE PROVIOED~ITHIN OF THE III11glSECTIONAT
VEHICULAR irrf%S TO THE STATE HTGHVAY SHALL BE PIIOVIDED IY A lOAD--TYPE CONIICTION,
VENICLR,AJI AI::C~BE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST VITHIN THE STATE HIGHVAT RIGHT OF
__ J~CES$ POINTS TO THE STATE NIGHMAY SHALL BE DEVEL~'~.~ IN A MANNER THAT gILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOB
MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGIR~Y,
~,ANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHVAT SHALL PROVIDE FOR ,SAFE SIGHT DISTARCEt CONPLY b/ITH FIXED OBJECT SET BACK
AND RE TO STATE STAEDAEDS,
__ A LEFT--TURN LABEl INCLUDING SHOULDERS AND ANY NECESSARY IJIDENINGt SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHMAY.
_ o,,-s,, ,LCU PA,,E,, ,,OL,S. ,',__,,LE ,,--,CTB,
__ PARXING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHII3JI,.AR II)VEPENT CONFLICTS# INCLUDING PARKING
/2L~ ENTRANCE Ak~ EXIT# WITHIN OF THE ENTRANCE FRCl4 THE STATE HIGIIMAT,
SHALL BE TAX~N b'HEN DEllLOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DEXIHASE PATTERN
OF THE STATE HIGIfi,IAT. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SEOULD BE GIVEN TO CUNULATIVE INCREASED STClUI RtJNOFF TO ]NSUItE
THAT A HIGHMAT DRAINACE PROBLEX IS NOT CEEATED,
PI,EASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADOITIONAL C~NTB. PZ~O VZDE TO
PLEASE BE )nVIBED THAT TIllS 12 A CONC]FT~AL PaVIEW ONLY. FZI~L APPROVAL WILL
BE Dw-TERMI]~ED DELVING TH~ E~eCliOl%Clgne~T PERMIT
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE APPLICABLE TO LOCAL AGENCY PT.BJiNERB/ENGINBER2
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WITHIN PIlESENT ON I~ED STATE RIGHT OF MAY SHIAJLD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL
HAZARDOUS HASTE ( I ,E oASBESTON# pETROCHEHICALS# ETC, ) AWD IIITIGATED AS PER IIEOUIEEHENT$ OF IIERULATONY AGENCIES,
WHEN PLANS ARE RUBHITTED# PLEASE CONFONN TO THE REOUIRENENTS OF THE ATTACHED nHANDOUTfi. THIS UILL EXPEDITE
' THE REVZBd PROCESS AND TIHE RERUIRED FOR PLAN CNErv, PROVIDE TO APPLICANT.
· J. THOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO MOT APPEAR TO NAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE STATE HIGHHAY $YSTEN# CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CIJ4ULATIVE EFFECT OF COlITINI~D DEVELOPfiERY
IN THIS AREA. ANY NEASURES NECESSARY TO NITIGATE THE CLIIJLATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE
PROVIDED PRIOR TO ON WITH DEVELOIq4ENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEN,
CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION# ON FUTURE PROVISION# OF SIONILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE
IkII~SE~"FICN OF A~, ~ STA!! HI~,MY ~ 1~a~,,S ~
IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD NAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON
THE STATE HIGHWAY $YSTEH OF THE AREA, ANY MEASURES TO NITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/ON DRAINAGE IHPACTS SHALL BE
]NCLUOED WITH THE DEVELOPHINT,
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHVAT IS INCLUDED IN TH/CALIFORNIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE X"XIGh'~AYS ELIGIBLE FOR
OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHVAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY MAY WISH TO NAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY
DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHVAT,
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGINAY HAS HEM OFFICIALLY DESIGIIATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHMAY# AND DEVELO
IN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE CDNPATIBLE WITH THE BEEIIIC NIGl&iV CQIII~t. PT,
IT 1s HECOGIIIZED THAT THERE IS CONS1DEIUaLE POILIC 8 ANGJT MOIHE LLnd~I-S NDJAI:BIT TO REAVILT TRAVELLED
HIGINAYS, ~ DEVELOIqIERTr IN OLDER TO BE COlFATIILE UITI THIS ~; MAY REOUIRE II~CIAL MOIHE A~TION
HE_~_es_.m_ES, DEV![LC3RI1T OF THIS ~TY ENOUf. D I~ lily IIIIIIAIY MOIHE ATT!IIATION,,
PLEASE 8SllD T!~ XTW(B uaasCFeD BELOW
CALTRA.NS DISTRICT 8
DEVSLOI~%SlIT HEYlET BRANCH
P.O. BOx 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
A COPY OF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED
A COPY OF ANY DOCtl4ENTS PROVIDING RDDITIO tAL STATE HIGHMAY RIGHT OF MAY UPON RECl)RDATION OF THE NAP,
ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHEE DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY°
A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONRENTAL STI.I)Y,
CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL ON TRACT RAP.
CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY IMPROVEI4ENTS WITHIR ON RDJAC:ENT TO THE STATE NIGNk%Y RIGHT OF k~
CNEC3( PRINT OF THE GRADING ARO DRAINAGE PLANE FCIt THIS PI~PESTY bINEN AVAILABLE.
Eastern Municipal Water District
j Andrew Schlange
Redwine and Sherrill
AUgust 16, 1993
RECEIVED
Saied Naaseh, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Unified School
Facility (PA 93-0157)
District
AUG 18 lg 3
Ans'd ............
Operations
Dear Mr. Naaseh::
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed 5.4 acre
transportation/maintenance/operations facility, located adjacent to
the Santa Gertrudis Creek channel, approximately 500 ft north of
Margarita Rd.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area. However, it must be understood the available
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of
the subject project, the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the service agreement between the District and the
developer of the subject project.
The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan
of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the
location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the
developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order
to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the
preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit
information describing the subject project to the District's
Customer Service Department, (909) 925-7676, extension 409, as
follows:
1. Written request for a "plan of service".
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 * Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jadnto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, llemet, CA
Saied Naaseh
PA 93-0157
August 16, 1993
Page 2
Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required
for extensive development projects or projects located in
"difficult to serve" geographic areas).
Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of
the subject project. Especially helpful materials
include grading plans and phasing plans.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
15-inch diameter sewer aligned along Winchester Rd. between
Margarita and Nicolas Rds.
Recently constructed collector sewer aligned along Margarita
Rd., west of Winchester Rd. and crossing the Santa Gertrudis
Creek. (Note, this sewer has not been placed in-service as of
this date.)
Other Issues
The representative of the subject project must contact the
District's Customer Service Department to arrange for a plan check
and field inspection of onsite plumbing.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
Very truly yours,
D~v.id G. C.rosley
DGC/cz
AB 93-869
(wp-ntwk-PA930157.clz)
P.a o
March 22, 1994
Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Maintenance, Operations, Transportation (MOT) Facility
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:mglS/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPTVISTPA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 33
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
"~HIBIT: A
r .C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRP'T~157pA83,pC 4126/94 sdl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
ZONING MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 sdl
CITY OF TEMECULA
·
CASE NO.: PA93-0~ 5? AND PA94-0002
'~HIBIT: C
r.C. DATE: ~AY 2, ~ 994
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRP"~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 edl
CITY OF TEMECULA
l
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
!
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
X:HIBIT: E
r'.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFP. PT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 sdl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPTV STPA93.PC 4/26194 edl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
'.HIBIT: G FLOOR PLAN
s-,.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 f~dl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: H
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
OVERALL SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 f~dl
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT%1S7PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 34
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CI.F.~RINGHOUSE NUMBER 93092023)
FOR ~ TEMECULA V.ALI.Ey UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION FACH.ITY
(PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0002)
The City of Temecula (the "City") hereby certifies the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility, F~nal
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 93092023, which consists
of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring Progrsm, these Findings of Fact, the Staff Report and any associated
attachments (collectively referred to as the "Finnl EIR'), and fin& that it has been
completed in compliance with the Cnllfornia Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resource Cede Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and that the City of Temecula has
received, reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, all
hearings, and submissions of testimony from officials and Departments of the City,
the Applicant, the pubhc and other municipalities and agencies.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as
any and all information in the record, the City of Temecula hereby makes these
Findings of Fact pursuant to, and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public
Resource Cede as follows:
BACKGROUND
The Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and
Transportation Facility (the "proposed project") involves of a total of 24,399 interior
square feet for various transportation, administrative and maintenance activities.
Storage space will also be provided for 40 school buses and 75 maintenance vehicles
as well as a fuel and wash island for District vehicles.
The transportation portion of the facility will involve 10,863 square feet of
space for six bus repair bays with associated repair and storage areas. Surrounding
the transportation pertion of the facility are the 40 bus storage stalls. Although
storage will be provided for 40 buses, the Temecula Valley Unified School District
anticipates that a maximum of 29 buses will be operational at any one time. During
the morning hours, a maximum of 29 buses out of the 40-bus fleet will be in
operation. After noon, a maximum of 10 buses will be in operation. Buses will warm
up and depart the site at staggered times within these periods.
The administration pertion of the facility will involve 5,939 interior square feet
of office space for District administrative functions and will generally operate between
the hours of 7:00 s~m. and 5:00 p.m.
The msintenance portion of the proposed facility consists of 6,035 square feet
of repair shops performing plumbing, heating/air conditioning repair, carpentry,
electrical, locksmith, irrigation and landscape maintenance functions. This portion
of the facility will be operational between the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. An
additional 1,562 square feet of common area containing compressors, lubrication and
welding equipment will also be provided. A fuel and wash island wffi be included on-
site to serve District vehicles. Dispensing fs~ilitiee for compressed and natural gas of
use in motor vehicles is being considered for the fuel island.
In addition to the 40 bus storage stalls noted above, the proposed
transportation, sdmlnistration and maintenance facility will also contain 75 parking
spaces for maintenance vehicles, 10 visitor parking stalls adjacent to the
sdmiuistration portion of the proposed facility and a separate, outdoor storage area
for lawn mowers and other landscape equipment. The proposed project is anticipated
to involve a total of approximately 96 employees at the initiation of operations in 1994
which will increase to 116 employees by the year 2010.
In addition to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the City
of Temecula must approve a Conditional Use Permit (planning Application 93-0157)
for the proposed project.
The City of Temecula circulated copies of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for
the proposed project in September, 1993 to all Responsible Agencies and interested
groups and individuals stating that a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) wffi
be prepared. Various agencies and individuals provided written comments within the
State-mandated 30 day public review period for the NOP. These written comments
discussed the scope and content of information to be contained within the Draft EIR.
Copies of these comments on the NOP are contained within Appendix A of the Draft
EIR.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Temecula Valley
Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility was
initially submitted to the City of Temecula on September 27, 1993.
During the months of September, 1993 through February, 1994 and subsequent
to the public review of the Notice of Preparation, the City of Temecula internally
reviewed "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR. Upon completion of this review,
copies of the Draft EIR were forwarded to all Responsible Agencies and interested
groups and individuals. As was also the case for the Notice of Preparation, the Draft
EIR was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to and review by
various involved State agencies. The State-mandated 45-day public review of the
Draft EIR began on February 22, 1994 and ended on Apr~ 8, 1994. A Responses to
Comments package has been prepared which presents written responses to comments
received as a result of the public review of the Draft EIR. This Responses to
Comments package is included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Initial Study for the Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance,
Operations and Transportation Facility was prepared by the City of Temecula on
August 27, 1993, which identified potential environmental impacts attributable to the
proposed project. These potential impacts include: Seismic Safety; Slopes and
Erosion; Noise; Climate and Air Quality; Circulation; Hydrology; Water Quality; Risk
of Upset; Cultural and Scientffic Resources; Wildlife/Vegetation; Land Use; Toxic
Substances; AestheticsfLight and Glare; Natural and Energy Resources; Public
Facilities and Services (water and sewer, fwe protection, police protection, utilities and
solid waste); Growth-Inducing Impacts and Cumulative Impacts. In addition, the
Initial Study identffied the necessity to analyze Project Alternatives and provide a
Mitigation Monitoring Program. As a result of the Initial Study, it was determined
that the proposed project may have a signfficant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.
The Final EIR analyzed both project and cumulative effects of the potential
environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study. The Final EIR developed and
identified a variety of mitigation measures to minimize, reduce, avoid or compensate
for the potential adverse effects of the proposed project.
The Final EIR also discussed a number ofpetential alternatives to the proposed
project, inducting the: 1) the No Project Alternative; 2) the Commercial Land Use
Alternative; 3) the Business Park Land Use Alternative; and 4) Alternate Project
Sites.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review by the
City of Temecula between the dates of February 22, 1994 and April 8, 1994 in
conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines. This 45-day
public review period (per Section 15087 (c) of State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the
receipt of comments from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible
paxties. Responses to the comments received regarding the proposed project and the
Draft EIR were prepared, and then reviewed and revised by City staff. This
Responses to Comments package is included in the Final EIR.
Public hearings will be held on the project proposal and its associated
environmental impacts by the City of Temecula prior to the certification of the Final
EIR.
The City of Temecula makes the following findings in adopting a Resolution
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report. Section 1 of these Findings
contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 2 discusses those
potential environmental effects of the proposed project which are not significant or
which have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 3 discusses the
signfficant unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed project which cannot be
feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 4 discusses the growth-inducing
impacts of the proposed project. Section 5 discusses the alternatives to the proposed
project discussed in the Final EIR. Section 6 discusses the Mitigation Monitoring
SECTION 1
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Final EIR identified and discussed significant effects which will occur as
a result of the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can be mitigated to levels of insignfficance
except for project-related unavoidable signil~cant impacts in the areas of Seismic
Safety, Climate and Air Quality, Hydrology and Land Use as identified in Section 3
of these Findings.
Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting Conditions of
Approval and monitored mitigation measures and having balanced the benefits of the
proposed project against the proposed project's potential unavoidable adverse impacts,
the City of Temecula hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts, and that the unavoidable adverse
impacts are nonetheless "acceptable" based on the following Overriding
Considerations:
1. The proposed project will assist and enhance the operations of the
Temecula Valley Unified School District through the construction of a combined
Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility. As such, transportation,
administrative and maintenance functions will be integrated into one site.
2. This centrally-located feeility will most efficiently serve the
transportation, administrative and maintenance needs of the School District and its
students.
3. The proposed project will be required to construct all required on- and
off-site infrastructure improvements in a coordinated fashion which is consistent with
surrounding land uses.
4. On-site fueling facilities will be designed to provide for the opportunity
in the future for the dispensing of alternate fuels (compressed natural gas) for District
and other government vehicles in the future. Availability of these alternate fuels will
reduce the reliance upon petroleum fuels and the associated air pollution impacts.
5. During the life of the project, it is anticipated that an additional 20
employment opportunities will be generate& These jobs are in addition to the
existing number of employees who wffi be working on-site at the initiation of project
operations.
SECTION 2
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT
SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
All Final EIR mitigation measures (as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached as Appendix A to these Findings) have been incorporated by
reference into the Conditions of Approval for the proposed Temecula Valley Unified
School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility.
The City of Temecula has determined that these mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval will result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects
and that these effects are not considered significant or they have been mitigated to
a level of insignfficance. The mitigation measures referred to below are contained
within the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as Appendix A to these
Findings.
Seismic Safety
Potential Impact: The site wffi be impacted by seismic activity along the Wfidomar
fault which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project. It is
estimated that a 7.5 earthquake along the Elsinore fault zone could create a madmum
peak ground acceleration on-site of 0.70g.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
A. Seismic Safety of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified
impacts.
Slopes and Erosion
Potential Imnact: Development of the site will require alteration of the existing land-
form and minimal cut and fill operations. The proposed grading plan results in an
estimated 30,700 cubic yards of cut and 85,300 cubic yards of fffi.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1,2 and 4 within
Section B. Slopes and Erosion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the
identified impact.
Potential Impact: Slope erosion on-site is a significant concern regarding surficial
stability. All cut and fffi slopes will be planted with erosion resistant vegetation and
other protective devices.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
F~nAI EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 3 within Section B.
Slopes and Erosion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impact.
Noise
Potential Impact: Construction noise represents a short-term impact on nmbient
noise levels.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identffied in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section C.
Noise of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts.
Potential Imnact: Bus operations and associated noise levels, based upon an actual
start up/departure session, was measured at several off-site locations. At these
locations, bus noise levels complied with the Model Noise Ordinance in that 55 dBA
was not exceeded.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: No additional mitigation measures required.
Potential Ironact: Traffic noise impacts associated with the proposed project are less
than 0.2 dBA or less. Noise increases less than 1.0 dBA will not be discernable to
local residents. (Noise increases greater than 3.0 dBA are considered significant.)
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: No additional mitigation measures required.
Climate and Air Quality
Potential Imnact: An estimated 0.06 tons of particulate emissions per day will be
released as a result of dust generated by construction equipment and win& during the
grading phase and site preparation of the project.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 19 within
Section D. Climate and Air Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will
mitigate the identified impact.
Potential Imnact: The project will generate long-term impacts which include mobile
emissions resulting from the estimated 10,000 daily vehicle miles traveled as well as
stationary emissions resulting from the consumption of electricity and natural gas.
The long-term pellutant generation associated with the proposed project is not
considered "significant" by the SCAQMD.
Findinn: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 20 through 23 within
Section D. Climate and Air Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi
mitigate the identified impact.
Circulation
Potential Ironact: The proposed project wffi generate an estimated 1,000 trips per
day. Of this total, 100 trips are morning peak hour trips and 110 trips are evening
peak hour trips. The proposed project is planned to take its primary access from
Margarita Road. This interim access wffi be dosed once the future Chaparral High
School is operational. The addition of project traffic does not alter the Level of
Service at any of the impacted intersections. The intersections of Winchester
Road/Nicolas Road and Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road are currently operating at
Level of Service "F~' during the evening peak hour and existing volumes meet the
warrants for signalization. The level of traffic activity at the project site will be the
same as that at the existing site on Rancho Vista Road and therefore no net increase
in areawide traffic wffi occur.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within
Section E. Circulation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
identified impact.
Hvdroloav
Potential Imnact: The development and construction phase of the project will
potentially create short-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the
creation of exposed soils during project grading.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section F.
Hydrology of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts:
Potential Imnact: The development phase of the project will create impermeable
surfaces (parking lots, bus storsge areas, roofs, etc.) thereby increasing on-site runoff.
Increased site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be accommodated by the
proposed drainage system. The increased flow rates from the project will
incrementally contribute to cumulatively increased flow rates downstream primarily
to Murrieta Creek and the potential for flooding in downstream areas containing
undersized f~i]ities. On-site flood hazards associated with the a~acent Santa
Gertrudis Creek have been eliminated with recent channel improvements.
Findinas: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
F. Hydrology of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impacts.
Water Quality
Potential Imnact: Project development will alter the composition of surface runoff by
grading site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities,
and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will
contain minor Amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides,
fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris.
This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the incrementally increased
degradation of water quality downstream
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within
Section G. Water Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
identified impacts:
Risk of Uoset
Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project will include provision of
maintenance facilities, repair shops, and a fuel and wash island, all of which are part
of the maintenance portion of the proposed project. In addition, the transportation
portion of the proposed project wffi include sLx bus repair areas. These functions may
involve the storage and use of hazardous materials. As such, the project has the
potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identLFxed in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section H.,
Risk of Upset of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impact.
Cultural and Scientific Resources
Potential Imnact: Possible adverse impact to the Pauba Formation which is of
"Moderate" to "High" palecntological sensitivity, may occur as a result of project
development. No archaeological sites have been observed with project boundaries,
however, potential impacts to unlrnown cultural resources may occur.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within
Section I. Cultural and Sclent'ffic Resources the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi
mitigate the identified impact.
Wildllfe and Ve2etation
Potential Imnact: Construction activities wffi remove introduced grassland habitat
through cut and fill and other grading operations thereby resulting in the direct loss
of this habitat and less mobile wildlife forms. Impacts resulting from vegetation loss
affects the wildlife associated with that vegetation by either destroying it or displacing
it to adjacent habitat. Additional impacts to wild|ire results from increasing
harassment from cats, dogs, children, light and glare, background noise and excessive
construction related noises. Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland community
to development will reduce areawide foraging habitat for raptors.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section J.
W~dlife and Vegetation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
identified impacts.
Toxic Substances
Potential Imnact: There is no evidence that on-site soils pose any hazard to future
use of the subject property. Development of the proposed project wffi include the
provision of maintenance facilities, repair shops and a fuel and wash island, all of
which are part of the maintenance portion of the proposed facility. In addition, the
transportation portion of the proposed facility wffi include six bus repair areas. These
functions may involve the storage and use of toxic substances.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
L. Toxic Substances of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impacts.
Aesthetics/Li2~t and Glare
Potential Imnact: Project development will permanently alter the nature and
appearance of the project site from its current open space use to the land uses
proposed. The currently degraded nature of the project site reduces these aesthetic
impacts to a level of insignificance. The project site is well set back from Winchester
Road (approximately 430 feet to the east) well outside the required 50 foot Scenic
Highway setback. The site itself does not contain nor WIll proposed development
block any scenic vistas which merit preservation. The project site lies within the 30
miJe Special Lighting Area of the Mt. Palomar Observatory.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
M. Aesthetics/Light and Glare of the Mitigation Monitoring Progrnm will mitigate the
identified impacts.
Natural and Energv Resources
Potential Imnact: On-site natural gas demand is estimated to be 48,798 cubic feet per
month. On-site electricity consumption is estimated to be 214,711 kilowatt hours per
year. The proposed project wffi result in the consumption of 667 gallons of gasoline
per day of which 384 gallons is estimated to be diesel fuel.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section N.
Energy and Natural Resources of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
identified impacts.
Water and Sewer Service
Potential Imvact: Project development will increase the demand on water and sewer
service in the area. The total average day demand for the project is estimated at
233,911 gallons. The project will require on-site water lines connecting to exist'rag
facilities in Winchester Read in order to provide water service to the site. The project
is anticipated to generate an average daily demand of 19,926 gallons per day of
wastewater. Sewer lines will be extended from existing lines in Winchester Read to
serve the site. EMWD wffi require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-
site so that when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process, is
complete, the project can utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation purposes.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 4 within
Section O. 1, Water and Sewer of the Mitigation Monitoring Progrnm will mitigate the
identLfied impacts.
Fire Protection
Potential ImPact: Project development will increase the demand upon existing fire
protection services. These impacts are due to the increase in emergency or public
service calls generated by project development
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section 0.2,
Fire Protection of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied
impacts.
Police Protection
Potential ImDact: The addition of maintenance, operations and transportation
facilities wffi result in minimum additional demand for additional police protection
services generally related to occasional burglary or vandalism calls.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section O.8,
Police Protection of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identffied
impacts.
Utilities
Potential Imnact: Project development will place additional demand on existing
electrical supplies. The project is estimated to utilize 214,711 kilowatt hours (kwh) of
electricity per year. The demand for natural gas will also increase with project
development. The project is estimated to consnine 48,798 cubic feet of natural gas per
month. The proposed project will place additional demand upon phone service. The
proposed project falls within the existing service capabilities of the involved utility
agencies.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section 0.4,
Utilities of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impacts.
Solid Waste
Potential Impact: Project development will increase the amount of solid waste
generated on-site, which in turn wffi increase the demand upon waste haulers serving
the area. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 244 pounds of solid waste
per day.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
0.5, Solid Waste of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impact. :
SECTION 3
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
The City has determined that certain environmental effects cannot be feasibly
or objectively mitigated to a level of insignificance although the Final EIR centalas
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the proposed project will
provide a substantial mitigation of these effects. Consequently, in accordance with
Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been prepared (See Section i of this Findings package) to
substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable adverse environmental
effects because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project. The mitigation
measures referred to below are contained within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm
which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings.
Seismic Safetw
Potential Imnact: Since the project site hes within the dam inundation area for
Skinner Reservoir DAm, it may be subject to seismically-induced flooding from dam
failure.
Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance in spite of the mitigation measure related to adherence to the "Report
on Flood Warning and Evacuation for the Proposed Chaparral High School Site in the
Event of Breach of the West Dam of Domeuigoni Reservoir" (see Responses to
Comments package within Final Environmental Impact Report). However, Conditions
of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the
proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section i of this Findings package).
Climate and Air Qunllty
Potential Imnact: Nitrogen oxides emissions during project construction will exceed
SCAQMD thresholds.
Findin2s: The impact identified in the Final EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmenWJ effect.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1 of this Findings package)
and that Mitigation Measures 9 through 19 within Section D. Air Quality of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the identified impacts.
I-Ivdr~lot,,v
Potential Impact: Since the project site lies within the dam inundation area for
Skinner Reservoir, it may be subject to seismicaliy-induced flooding from dam failure.
Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR vAnnot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1 of this Findings package).
No additional mitigations are proposed for this signfficant impact.
Land Use
Potential Impact: Project development will result in the transition in land use from
open space to the proposed project, as well as resulting in the permanent loss of
future agriculture productivity on "Prime Agricultural Land."
Findings: The impact identified in the FinAl EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section i of this Findings package).
No additional mitigation measures are proposed for this significant impact.
SECTION 4
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires considerations of the
ways that the proposed project could be considered growth-inducing.
As the proposed project is located in an area undergoing rapid urbanl zation and
is generally surrounded by future urban uses, signfficant growth-inducing impacts are
difficult to foresee.
Several land development proposals have been prepared for vacant adjacent
properties, therefore, the proposed project is not considered growth-inducing to these
surrounding areas. These surrounding project proposals include the Winchester Hills,
Temecula Regional Center and Csmpos Verdes Specific Plans. The proposed project
can be considered growth-accommodating, as it will provide improved services from
the Temecula Valley Unified School District from a centrally-located functionally-
combined facility. With the exception of minor utilities extensions, the necessary
infrastructure is in place to serve the project.
SECTION 5
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the proposed project described in the Final EIR were considered.
The alternatives discussed in the Final EIR constitute a reasonable range of potential
options necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The Final EIR identffied the "No
Project" alternative as the environmentally superior alternative; however, the City did
not select any of the proposed project alternatives but approved the proposed project
with the mitigation measures from the F~nsl EIR which wffi provide a substantial
mitigation of the potential environmental effects. Consequently, in accordance with
Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been prepared (See Section I of this Findings package) to
substantiate the City's decision to reject the environmentally preferred alternatives
because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project.
Alternative I - The "No Project" Alternative
Descrintion of Alternative: The Final EIR describes the "No Project" Alternative as
a continuation of existing undeveloped conditions supporting passive open space uses.
Comnarisen of Effects: The "No Project" Alternative would eliminate the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. These impacts include:
grading impacts and associated impacts upon landform, geology, hydrology, etc.; traffic
impacts and associated air quality and noise impacts; biological impacts related to
disruption of w~dllfe; and impacts related to provision of public services and utilities.
This Alternative also retains existing passive open space uses on-site, at least for the
short-term.
Finding: The "No Project" alternative is not feasible as this aiternative fails to meet
project the objectives identified in the Final EIR or to provide any of the benefits set
forth herein.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that it has been determined that this alternative
would negate the benefits associated with the primary project objective of assisting
and enhancing the maintenance, operations, and transportation functions of the
Temecula Valley Unified School District. Due to the site's location within a
developing urban areas, the project site's City General Plan designation for urban
uses and the availability of public utilities serving the area, long-term undeveloped or
future agricultural use of the project site is not considered likely nor logical.
Alternative 2 - Commercial Land Use
Description of Alternative: The Commercial Land Use Alternative considers
development of the site for commercial land uses pursuant to the City of Temecula,
General Plan (B-P, Business Park) and Zoning (R-R, Rural Residential) designations
for the project site. Future development within the Commercial Land Use Alternative
is assumed to involve approximately 100,000 square feet of interior space for
commercial use.
Comparison of Effects: This Alternative would have seismic safety and slopes and
erosion impacts which are sjmi|ar to those associated with the project proposal.
Impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated to be greater with this
Alternative as compared to the proposed project due to the increased number of
customers associated with commercial land uses. This Alternative would generate
5,314 daily vehicle trips, a 431% increase as compared to vehicular traffic levels
associated with the project proposal. Similar increased in noise and air quality
impacts are also anticipated with this Alternative. This Alternative would result in
the loss of passive open space uses and would preclude the future use of the site for
agricultural purposes. Similar wildlife/vegetation and cultural and scientffic resource
impacts are anticipated to occur with this Alternative as compared to the project
proposal. Increased fire and police protection demands as well as ut'fiities and solid
waste demands are anticipated with this Alternative as compared to the proposed
project. Water and sewer demands of this Alternative are similar to those associated
with the proposed project.
Findings: After compsring the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and the Commercial Land Use Alternative, the City did not select this Alternative.
However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project, as described in Sections 2 and 3 of this
Findings package, will substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed
project.
Facts: The Commercial Land Use Alternative was rejected in favor of the proposed
project for the following reasons. This Alternative results in increased impacts in the
areas of hydrology, traffic, noise, air quality and certain public facilities and utilities
and is, therefore, not considered to be "environmentally superior" to the current
development proposal. Also, this Alternative would eliminate public benefits
associated with the project, including the assisting and enhancing the operations of
the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Alternative 3 - Bus'mess Park Land Use Alternative
Description of Alternative: The Business Park Land Use Alternative involves
development of business park uses on the project site. It is assumed that the site
would be developed with approximately 145,000 square feet of interior space for
business park land uses.
Comnarison of Effects: Impacts of this Alternative associated with seismic safety,
slopes and erosion, hydrology and water quality, open space and conservation,
wildlife/vegetation, and cultural and scientffic resources, would be similar to those
associated with the proposed project. This Alternative would generate 18,850 daily
vehicle trips, a 1,755% increase as compared to vehicular traffic levels associated with
the project proposal. Sirelimit increases in noise and air quality impacts are also
anticipated with this Alternative.
This Alternative would also increase the impacts associated with pohce and fire
protection, energy consumption and sohd waste generation. Water and sewer
demands of this Alternative are similar to those associated with the proposed project.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and the Business Park Land Use Alternative, the City did not select this Alternative.
However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project, as described in Sections 2 and 3 of this
Findings pa~.kage, wffi substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed
project.
Facts: The Business Park Land Use Alternative was rejected in favor of the proposed
project for the following reasons. This Alternative results in significantly increased
impacts in the area of traffic, noise and air quality. This Alternative is not, therefore,
considered "environmentally superior". This Alternative also negates the public
benefits associated with the project including assisting and enhancing the operations
of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. This Alternative could also result in
land use conflicts with surrounding commercial and residential land uses.
Alternative 4 - Alternative Sites
Description of Alternative: The Temecula Valley Unified School District considered
in detail several alternative site locations in the process of selecting the currently-
proposed project location. These alternative project site locations include: 1) a parcel
at Margarita Road and Pauba Road; 2) the Rancho California Water District Building
on Diaz Road; and 3) a parcol at Rancho Vista Road across the street from the
existing School District Offices.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and various Alternative Sites, the City did not select any of these Alternatives.
Project development at Margarita Road and Pauba Road would result in increased
impacts in the areas of surrounding land use compatibility, project grading, air
quality, aesthetics, and relocation of off-site utilities. This site is also less than the
ideal size for the proposed project facilities. Project development at the Rancho
California Water District Building on Diaz Road would result in longer routes and
potential delays for District busses due to this site's location on the west side of
Interstate 15. This alternate site is also subject to flooding from Murrieta Creek and
is also smaller than the ideal size for the proposed project facilities. Project
development at Rancho Vista Road across from the existing School District offices
would remove parking from the Temecula High School stadium, create potential
surrounding land use incompatibilities, and result in potential aesthetic impacts and
would result in the placement of transportation and maintenance/operations functions
of the School District in different locations.
Facts: These Alternative sites were rejected in favor of the proposed project location
because project development at these Alternate sites would result in increased
environmental impacts as summarized above.
SECTION 6
FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the Pubhc Resources Code requires that when a public
agency is making the Findings required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)
(1), cedified as Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the public agency shah
adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the proposed project
which it has adopted or made a Condition of Approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City of Temecula hereby finds and accepts that the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, which is attached as Appendix A to this Findings package, meets the
requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for the
implementation and monitoring of project conditions intended to mitigate potential
environmental impacts.
SECTION 7
SECTION 15091 AND 15092 FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record,
the City of Temecula has made one or more of the following findings with respect to
the significant effects of the proposed project:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid many of the significant
environmental effects thereef as identffied in the Final EIR.
Some changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such
other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make feasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identffied in the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record,
and as conditioned by the foregoing findings:
All significant effects on the environment due to the proposed project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible (see
Sections 2 and 3 of this Findings package).
Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding concerns set forth in
the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 1 of
this Findings package).
APPENDIX A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
SEE ATTACHMF-NT NO. (~
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 35
°i
Z
Z
z
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PUBLIC COMMENTS
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4128/94 edl 36
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
TO:
C1TY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
P, EEEIVED
DA,E:
ATTN: Saied Naaseh ~__: ~
FROM: ~,~C.~/ JOHN SILVA, P.E. Senior Public Health Engineer, Deparm~ent of Enviromnental Health
RE: ~EMECULA VALLEY UNIFORM SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY - DRAFT EIR
WATER/SEWER: (John C. Silva, P.E.. Senior Public Health En2ineerL Denartment of Environmental
Health
The 6.642 acre site will be receiving its 23,911 gallons per day of domestic water from Rancho California Water
District. A total of 19.926 gallons per day of sewage is estimated from the project which will be treated at the
Eastem Municipal Water District plant in Temecula.
Use of RECLAIMED WATER is mentioned but not fully explored for project implementation. Should a dual
plumbing system be used to iragate the landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made
available to serve about 50 homes or fanulies. In the reclaimed business, a project such as this is the ideal ~'pe of
project for dual uses of water. The dual system would be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer with
review/approval by the Pdverside County. Health Department.
SOLID WASTE: Chuck Strev, P.E., Civil Engineer. Denartment of Environmental Health
The LEA offers the following comments on the above referenced project:
1. TheEIRsh~u~daddr~ssth~pr~perhand~ing~andre~yc~mg~fc~nstructi~nwastegenemtedduringthe
project development.
2 Multi-family dwelling umt waste bin enclosures should provide adequate space for storage of recyclable
materials.
3. If any significant illegal land filling activity. is discovered as a result of this project, the LEA shall be
notified prior to burial or removal.
If you should have an>' further questions regarding the above Document, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(909) 275-8980.
JS:dr
State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum
To
From :
Subiect:
:State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning & Research
1400 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention Mari Lewis
DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
District 8
Dote : April 1, 1994
FileNo.: 08-RiV-79-R3.9
SCH# 93092023
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Valley School
District Bus and Maintenance Facility
We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request
consideration of the following comments:
Care should be taken when developing this project to
preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern
of the state highway. Particular consideration must be
given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure
that a highway drainage problem is not created.
Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester
Road), opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Caltrans
approval. All matters regarding access, grading, and
drainage should be sent to:
Mr. Gerry Lunt
Development Review
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
(909)
If you have any questions, please contact La Keda Johnson at
383-5929 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
-c RCOB R / ( ~ '
Riverside County
Coordination Branch
LKJ:cl
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOx2/tt
February 28, 1994
RECEIVED
NAR O f99z
km'd ............
office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
RECEIVED
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Attn: Saied Naaseh
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that you plan to construct a
transportation and maintenance facility adjacent to Santa
Gertrudis Creek, west of Winchester Road and north of Margarita
Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This
activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A
Corps of Engineers permit is required for:
a. Structures or work in or affecting "navigable waters of
the United States," including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Examples
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) constructing a pier, revetment, bulkhead, jetty, aid to
navigation, artificial reef or island, and any structures to
be placed under or over a navigable water;
2) dredging, dredge disposal, filling and excavation.
b. The discharge of dredged or fill material into, including
any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United
States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited
to, the following:
1) creating fills for residential or commercial development,
placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling
of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and constructing outfall
structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures;
2) mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling
low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other
excavation activities that would have the effect of
destroying or degrading waters of the United States;
3) allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or
water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States;
4) placing pilings when such placement has or would have the
effect of a discharge of fill material.
c. The transportation of dredged or fill material by vessel
or other vehicle for the purpose of dumping the material into
ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972;
d. Any combination of the above.
Enclosed you will find an information packet that describes
our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please
contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Refer to this
letter in your reply.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Henderson
Acting Chief, South Coast Section
Enclosures
RECEIVED
APR O 8 199~
/ins'd .............
South Coast
LI
AIR QUA TY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000
March 8, 1994
Saled Naaseh
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
RE: Temecula Valley School District and Maintenance Facility
SCAQMD# RVC940225-01
RECEIVED
mAR I 0 1S94
Due to staffing cutbacks the SCAQMD is unable to comment on your project at this time.
SCAQMD staff recommends that you follow the procedures and methodologies set out in
the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Utilizing the information in the
Handbook will assist you in adequately addressing the potential air quality impacts of your
project. The Handbook will be updated periodically, in an effort to assist your staff in
evaluating air quality impacts that may result from land use projects.
The District staff will, however, make every effort to evaluate rojects of a regional nature.
We are available to answer any questions you may have regar~in the use of the CEQA
Handbook. Please feel free to contact the Local Government - ~dQA section at (909)
396-3109 for assistance.
Program Su ervisor
Planning & P;echnology Advancement
CAD:Ii
April 9, ]994
RECEIVLD
ApRil1994
Dear city planners, ~ ~ ~
I live in the Winchester Properties just east of the proposed
site, and I'm writing to you in regards to case #PA93-0757 and
PA94-0002.
I feel that a school district transportation facility,
could be a disaster to our area.
It was my understsnding that a planners' obligation to the
community was to project balance and harmony throughout the
city. Ifeel this area is being neglected because we represent
a minority of tax paying citizens which reside with-in
the boundries of Temecula.
Part of the taxes I pay each year are to develop parks
and recreational areas which in hopes will create a pleasent
environment. As it is we have to travel miles to enjoy the
areas we helped finance.
Ifeel the proposed transportation site will further damage,
and create an unfair imbalance in comparison, of the surrounding
residences. I also feel the site should be placed in an area
where there is an abundance of greenery and existing parks
or on the e_~stern portion of Temecula where a negative
environmental impact is not as severe.
I respectfully urge the planning commision to find an
alternative site due to poor" climate and air quality" and
an undisireable " land use "
concerned citizen of Temecula,
Jeffrey Glen Sechler
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
R:\STAFFRP'T~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 37
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAINTENANCE,
OPERATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0002
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 94022501
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACF REPORT
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COM1VIENTS
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Planner: Saied Naaseh
(714) 694-6400
Prepared by:
DOUGLAS WOOD & ASSOCIATES
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
AGENCY COMMENTS/STAFF RESPONSES
The following agencies commented on the Draft EIR. Each comment received is contained
herein and is followed by a summary of the respective concern and the staff response. The
following Responses to Comments in combination with the Draft EIR, Staff Report and
any other attachments for this project constitute the Final EIR for the Temecula Valley
Unffied School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility.
Page
Executive Summany ................................................. 1
A. City of Temecula Planning Depax'talent (April 11, 1994) ................. 3
B. South Coast Air Quality Management
District (March 8, 1994) ........................................ 4
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (February 28, 1994) .................... 5
D. County of Riverside, Depa, tment of Environmental
Health (March 9, 1994) ......................................... 6
E. Riverside County, Flood Control and Water
Conservation DisWict (April 5, 1994) ............................... 8
F. State of California, Department of
Transportation (April 1, 1994) ................................... 10
G. Doreen Linnen (April 6, 1994) .................................. 11
EYE, CUTIVE SUMMARY
The Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and
Transportation Facility, Draft Environmental Impact Report, was circulated for public
review by the City of Temecula between February 22, 1994 and April 8, 1994. This
circulation was in eenformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA
Guidelines which state that, "The lead agency (City of Temecula) shall consuit with
and request comments on the Draft EIR from: 1) Responsible agencies; 2) Trustee
agencies with resources affected by the project; and 3) Other State, Federal and local
agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project.
The lead agency may consult directly with any person who has special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved."
This 45-day public review period (per Section 15087(c) of the State CEQA
Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments from a variety of governmental
agencies and other responsible parties as listed below. As indicated in Section 15088
of the State CEQA Guidelines:
15088. Evaluation of and Response to Comments
(a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on
environmental issues received from persons who reviewed
the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The
lead agency shall respond to comments received during the
noticed comment period and any extensions and may
respond to late comments.
(b) The written response shall describe the disposition
of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to
the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or
objections). In particular, the major environmental issues
raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with
recommendations and objections raised in the comments
must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specffic
comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must
be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory
statements unsupported by factual information will not
suffice.
(c) The response to comments may take the form of a
revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in
the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes
important changes in the information contained in the text
of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:
(D
or
Revise the text in the body of the EIR,
(2) Include marginal notes showing that
the information is revised in the response to
comments.
Provided below is a listing of each agency or responsible party who responded
to the Draft Environmental Impact Report accompanied by a listing of the respective
concerns raised and followed by an indication of the nature of the response to that
concern. Spocific details concerning the comments made and responses provided can
be found in the following Response to Public Comments package. A copy of the actual
correspondence received is also included.
A~encvfResnonsible Party
Concern
Nature of Resnonse
City of Temecula PlAnning
Department
Request for additional
mitigation concerning
Evacuation Plan for flooding.
Additional mitigation measure
added to Section IV.F.,
Hydrelogy.
South Coast Air Quality
Man%,ement District
Recommendation that CEQA
Handbook procedures be
followed.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
factors used in Section IV.D.,
Climate and Air Quality.
U.S. Army Corps of A permit from the Corps of Reference made to mitigation 1
Engineere Engineers may be required. in Section N.J., Wildlife/
Vegetation.
County of Riverside,
Department of
Environmental Health
Riverside County, Flood
Control and Water
Conservation District
State of California
Department of
Transportation
G. Doreen Linnen
Additional information
concerning use of reclaimed
water and solid waste impacts
requested.
Project will not impact Master
Plan facilities. NPDES,
FEMA, DFG, and U.S. ACOE
permits required.
Prejact should not impact
drainage on a State Highway.
Approval of intersection des'~a
required.
Opposed project due to air
quality, noise and trsiTac
impacts. The prejest should be
relocatod on the opposite side
of Interstate 15.
Additional reclaimed water and
solid waste information
provided.
Reference to applicable
mitigations provided.
Project will not drain toward
State Route 79 and will have
intersection plans checked by
Caltrans.
No long-term significant
project impacts related to air
quality, noise and circulation.
Alternate sites discussion in
Draft EIR quoted.
2
A. CITY OF TEMECULA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT (April 11, 1994)
Pursuant to the request of the City of Temecula, Planning Department, the
following mitigation measure is hereby added to Section IV.F. Hydrology, of the text
(page IV-65) of the Draft EIR with a similar addition made to the EIR
Summary/Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm~
"3. The proposed project shall adhere to the recommendations of the "Report
on Flood Warning and Evacuation for the Proposed Chaparral High School Site
in the Event of Breach of West DAm of Domenigoini Reservoir".
As noted on page IV-64 of the Draft EIR, this study is included in its entirely
within Appendix C of the Draft EIR and outlines a plan of communication, warning
and evacuation for the proposed Chaparral High School site which is immediately
adjacent to the project site. This Report, prepared in September of 1992, provides an
Evacuation Plan which addresses the following elements: warning time, staffing
requirements, communications systems, alerting procedures, evacuation
considerations and a recommended evacuation plan. The recommendations contained
in this Report would appear to be appli~hle to the proposed Maintenance, Operations
and Transportation Facility in the event of breaching of either Domenigoini or
Skinner Reservoir Dams.
SOUTH COAST AIR QU~,LITY MANAGE1WE-NT DISTRICT (March 8,
1994)
Comment 1: The South Coast Air Quality Management Distr/ct recommends
that procedures and methodologies set forth in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
(April, 1993) is utilized within the analysis of air quality impacts within the
Draft EIR.
Response: Emission factors used to analyze air quality impacts in the Draft
EIR were based upon factors taken from the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook.
4
C$
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (February 28, 1994)
Comment: A permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required
for the proposed project for: a) structures or work in or affecting "navigable
waters of the United States" including adjacent wetlands pursuant to Sections
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; b) the discharge of dredged or f'~l material
including any redepesit of dredged material witkin "waters of the United
States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
of 1972; c) the transportation of dredged or ~] material for the purpose of
dnmping the materis] into ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; or (d) any combination of the
above.
Response: As noted in Mitigation Measure 1 on page IV-75 of the Draft EIR:
"1. In concert with construction activities adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek,
the Cnllfornia Department of Fish and Game wffi be notffied and consulted
pursuant to the California Fish and Game Cede Sections 1601-1603 and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with their Section 404 permit
process."
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
I~LTH (March 9, 1994)
Comment 1: Use of reclaimed water for the proposed project should be more
fully explored. Should a dual plumbing system be used to irrigate the
landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made
available to serve about 50 homes or fnmilies. This project is the ideal type of
project for dual uses of water. The dual system would be designed by a rehable
civil engineer with review/approval by the Riverside County Health
Department.
Response: As stated on pages IV-92 and IV-93 of the Draft EIR:
"At the present time, there are no reclaimed water facilities to serve the
proposed project. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is currently in the
process of planning a backbone reclaimed water system throughout the District
which may include a msjor line in Winchester Read. EMWD Ordinance No. 68,
adopted in October of 1989, describes the District's policy regarding reclaimed
water use. EMWD may require the project to construct reclaimed water lines
on-site so that when the regional system is complete, the project can ultimately
utilize reclaimed water for irrigation."
"Areas most likely to ut'~ize reclaimed water are landscaped areas along the
perimeter of the proposed project as well as landscaped areas within parking
lots and adjacent to buildings. The proposed EMWD reclaimed water system
would ultimately provide service to the project site. The proposed project will
comply with EMWD's requirements for installation of on-site reclaimed water
lines. The project will likely connect to the backbone reclaimed water line to
be constructed in the future along Winchester road. A distribution line may be
extended as part of the extension of Reripaugh Read."
Mitigation Measure i on page IV-93 of the Draft EIR has been revised to state
(addition underlined):
"1. All water, sewer and reclaimed water facilities will be designed per the
Eastern Municipal Water Distr (EMWD) and the Rancho California Water
District's (RCWD) requirements. Reclaimed water facilities will also be
reviewed bv the County of Riverside. Denartment of Environmental Health.
The infrastructural system will be installed to the requirements of EMWD and
RCWD. The property owner will also grant any requested easements to
RCWD?
Comment 2: The Final EIR should address the proper handling, and recycling
of construction waste generated during the project development.
Response: The construction phase of the proposed project will produce solid
waste. Construction waste is calculated at approximately 16 pounds per square foot
of building space and generally consist of lumber, roofing material, concrete debris,
etc. Assuming 24,399 square feet of total interior spaco associated with the proposed
project, the solid waste associated with the overall construction phase of the proposed
project is estimated at 390,384 pounds of 195.2 tons. This is considered a short-term,
non-significant impact.
On page IV-100 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 1 states that the project
applicant is required to "work with the County Waste Management Department and
the City of Temecula in efforts to achieve the goals of the Integrated Waste
Management Act." This requirement also applies to the generation of construction
waste.
Comment 3: Multi-family dwelling unit waste bin enclosures should provide
adequate space for storage for recyclable materials.
Response: No multi-fAmily residential land uses are proposed. Solid waste bin
enclosure areas within the proposed project, the precise design of which will be
reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula, Community Services Department,
will include adequate space for storage of recyclable materials.
Comment 4: If any significant illegal land filling activity is discovered as a
result of this project, the DEH shall be notified prior to burial or removal.
Response:
As noted in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 on page IV-82 of the
Draft EIR:
"1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City of Temecula and any
appropriate County or state agencies shall review proposed project plans to
determine the potential for existence and use of toxic materials and potential
adverse effects from exposure to toxic substances. Particular impacts which
may occur include degradation to air and water quality, health problems,
transportation, storage or disposal problems. Required measures may include
requirements for setbacks, siting of structures and monitoring."
"2. The proposed facility, once operating, will adhere to standards and
requirements of OSHA, Cal OSHA, EPA, the County of Riverside, Department
of Environmental Health and the City of Temecula."
7
E. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT (April 5, 1994)
Comment 1: This project would not be impacted by Drainage Master Plan
facilities or other facilities of regional interest.
Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
Comment 2: This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval, should not
be given untfi the City has determined that the project has been granted a
permit or is shown to be exempt.
Response: As noted in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 on page IV-67 of the Draft
EIR:
"1. Pursuant to requirements of the Cnllfornia State Regional Water
Resources Control Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all project-
related construction activities. Construction activity includes: clearing,
grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of
total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of
development of five acres or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this project,
the appropriate NPDES construction permit shall be obtained prior to
commencing grading activities. All development within the project boundaries
shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the City to implement to
NPDES program."
"2. The proposed project will comply with National Pollutant Discharge
Ehmination System (NPDES) requirements through the provision of three-
stage treatment clarifiers for surface runoff from the project site. Eastern
Municipal Water District will monitor the quality of runoff from these
8H_rface8."
Comment 3: If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to
provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet
FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or
other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior
to occupancy.
Response: As noted in Mitigation Measure 1 on page V-64 of the Draft EIR:
"All drainage facilities for this project shall conform to the standards and
requirements of the Riverside County Fioed Control and Water Conservation
District and the City of Temecula in order to mitigate potential surface
8
drainage impacts"
This measure would apply to the FEMA requirements noted above, as applicable to
the proposed project.
Comment 4: If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this
project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601-1603
Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean
Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. A~-my Corps of Engineers or
written correspendenco from these agencies indicating the project is exempt
from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 404 Water Quality
Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality
Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permits.
Response: See response to comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
as contained in this Responses to Comments package.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(April 1, 1994)
Comment 1: Care should be taken when developing this project to preserve
and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the State Highway. Particular
consideration must be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure
that a highway drainage problem is not created.
Response: The size of the project site (6.642 acres) and the direction of future
drainage flows from the finished project (toward Santa Gertrudis Creek and away
from State Route 79) insures that the proposed project will not result in increased
storm runoff impacts to the nearest State Highway, Winchester Road (State Route
79).
Comment 2: Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester Road),
opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Caltrana approval.
Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
10
G. DOREEN LINNEN (April 6, 1994)
Comment 1: I object to the placement of a bus facility near our home for the
following reasons: a) air pollution b) noise, and c) traffic congestion. These
impacts will result in a loss of property value of our home.
Response: The impacts of the proposed project related to air quality, noise and
traffic were analyzed in detafi in Sections IV.D., Air Quality, IV.C. Noise and IV.E.
Circulation. The only significant impact resulting from the analysis of these three
issues is the "short-term" (construction -related) emissions of Nitrogen Oxides. This
impact is short-term in that it only occurs during and as a result of project
construction.
Comment 2: This type of project should be placed on the opposite side of the
freeway away from housing.
Response: Section V.C., Alternatives to the Proposed Project, within the Draft
EIR, analyzes alternate project sites. One alternate site which was considered was
located on the west side of Interstate 15 (Rancho California Water District Building
on Diaz Road). This alternative was rejected due to the sito's location on the west
side of Interstate 15 which lengthens bus routes and would result in possible delays
in bus service due to traffic congestion at the freeway overpasses.
11
South Coast
!
AIR O, UAL TY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000
B
March 8, 1994
Saled Naaseh
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
RE: Temecula Valley School District and Maintenance Facility
SCAQMD# RVC940225-01
RECEIVED
HAR 101.,q.~4
.4~'d. ...........
Due to staffing cutbacks the SCAQMD is unable to comment on your project at this time.
SCAQMD staff recommends that you follow the procedures and methodologies set out in
the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Utilizing the information in the
Handbook will assist you in adequately addressing the potential air quality impacts of your
project. The Handbook will be updated periodically, in an effort to assist your staff in
evaluating air quality impacts that may result from land use projects.
The District staff will, however, make every effort to evaluate projects of a regional nature.
We are available to answer any questions you may have regarding the use of the CEQA
Handbook. Please feel free to contact the Local Government - CEQA section at (909)
396-3109 for assistance.
Program Su ervisor
Planning & ~echnology Advancement
CAD:Ii
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
February 28, 1994
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Attn: Saied Naaseh
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that you plan to construct a
transportation and maintenance facility adjacent to Santa
Gertrudis Creek, west of Winchester Road and north of Margarita
Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This
activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A
Corps of Engineers permit is required for:
a. Structures or work in or affecting "navigable waters of
the United States," including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Examples
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) constructing a pier, revetment, bulkhead, jetty, aid to
navigation, artificial reef or island, and any structures to
be placed under or over a navigable water;
2) dredging, dredge disposal, filling and excavation.
b. The discharge of dredged or fill material into, including
any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United
States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited
to, the following:
l) creating fills for residential or commercial development,
placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling
of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and constructing outfall
structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures;
2) mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling
low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other
excavation activities that would have the effect of
destroying or degrading waters of the United States;
3) allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or
water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States;
4) placing pilings when such placement has or would have the
effect of a discharge of fill material.
c. The transportation of dredged or fill material by vessel
or other vehicle for the purpose of dumping the material into
ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972;
d. Any combination of the above.
Enclosed you will find an information packet that describes
our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please
contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Refer to this
letter in your reply.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Henderson
Acting Chief, South Coast
Section
Enclosures
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
RECEIVED
MAR 11 199 .
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
AIIN: SaiedNaaseh ~__;
~C'2/ JOHN SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer, Deparanent of Environmental Health
2~M: ~/~T(EMECULA VALLEY UNIFORM SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAIN-rENANCE FACILITY - DRAFT EIR
WATER/SEWER: (John C. Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Health Enlfineer), Department of Environmental
Health
The 6.642 acre site will be receiving its 23,911 gallons per day of domestic water from Rancho California Water
District. A total of 19,926 gallons per day of sewage is estimated from the project which will be treated at the
Eastern Mumcipal Water District plant in Temecula.
Use of RECLAIMED WATER is mentioned but not fully explored for project implementation. Should a dual
phmbmg system he used to irrigate the landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made
available to serve about 50 homes or families. In the reclaimed business, a project such as this is the ideal ~'pe of
project for dual uses of water, The dual system would be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer with
review/approval by the Riverside County Health Department.
SOLID WASTE: Chuck Strev. P.E.. Civil Engineer. Department of Environmental Health
The LEA offers the following comments on the above referenced project:
1. TheE~Rsh~u~daddressthepr~perhand~ing~andre~yc~mg~fc~nstructi~nwastegeneratedduri~gthe
project development.
2. Multi-family dwelling unit waste bm enclosures should provide adequate space for storage of recyclable
materials.
3. If any significant illegal land filling activity is discovered as a result of this project, the LEA shall be
notified prior to burial or removal.
If you should have any further questions regarding the above Document, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(909) 275-8980.
JS:dr
1
2
3
4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RECEIVED
APR 0 5 199z
Ans'd ............
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Tho I:XStrlCl does not normally recommend c~x',dilions for land divisions or other land use oasos In incorp~aled Cities. The Dlslrlct ei~o d~es ns, l
plan che~ dty land use cases, or provide State Oivisic~q of Real Estate letters o~ other flood hazard rel:x:~ls for mjch c.,ase.~ Distric~
commenldreoomrnendatlons for s,Jch ceJes ere noffnedly limited to ]tams of spedtic Interest to the Dls*,ri~ including 1~41HCl Master Drainaide Plan
ladltUes. other regionad flood conlrol and drainage facilities which could be consjdotad a logical o:;~'qxment o~ eXtendon of a m~ster plan system,
and Di~trid Area Di'alnage Plan fees (development mitlg~tian lees). In eddltlon. klfarmalian of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed *,he proposed projed in dotall and the Idlowing checkel comments do not In any wey conetote or impiy Dl~lr~
approvaJ or endorsement ot lhe proposed project with rsspe~ to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue:
~T
his project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage PIe,1 facilities nor are other fadElies of regional interest propOSed.
F'~Thls projed involves Distr~ct Master Ran tadlilies. The District will acoepl ownership o~ such tadlitles otl written request of the City. Fac~ljlje$
must be Gonstructed to ~strlct standrods, and DistriO plan check and tnspedion will be required for District ec~eplanCe. Plan
inspeotlon arid administrative fees will be required.
[""}This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in dlamerer. or Other fadlilies that could be COnsiderel regional in natu~u
and/or a logiczd extension of tho adopted Master Dralnago Plan. The District would Consider accepting
ownership ot such fecilitie.~ on writton r~tuest ot the Ctly. Fadlille~ must be COnsmjcted to Distrim $latldards. and District plan cheok and
inspedion will be required for I~slric~ 8cceptance. Plan Check, inspedlon and administrative fees will be required.
~"]Th~s projgd is J0caled vffih~n the liratie of the Dislrict's Area Drainage Plan lot which drainage
fees havo boon edopted; spplicablo Ioos should be paid to tho Flood Control District or CiP/prior to final approvaJ ol iho project, Gr in the c,a.se
of a parcel map or sulxtivislon prior to recordslion 0t the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in elloct it the tim of recordslion.
or if deterred, at the time of issUanCe Ol the az.,lu~ permit.
GENF. BAL.INF_QRMA_TJJ;}N
This project may require a Na0onaJ Pdlutant Disc,~arge Btmlnalion System (NPDES) bereft from the State We|or Resources Contrd BoNd.
Clearance for grading, re~ordation, or other final approv,,J. should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been grained a
permit or is shown to ~e exempt.
If this project involves a FederaJ Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped ~o~l plain, then the City should require the applicant to
provide ~1 studies, C~cula~ons. plans and other into~nation required to meet FEMA requirements. and should furlher require that the applicant
obta/n a ConditionaJ Letlet of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordsdon or Other Ijnai apprDva~ of the project, attd 8 Le]ter of Map
Revision (LOMR) prior to noojpa~cy.
II a natural wateroourse or mapped fl,~Jd/..qah: is ifnpacted by this project the CIW should require the a,oplicant tO obtaJn a Sealion 1601/1603
Agreement from the C~lifotnl8 Deparlment of Icish and G~rno and a Clean Wat~ Act Sedlon 404 potn'~t from tile U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, ot wrmen Co~'respondence from Ihese agencies indicating the proJecl is exempt trom these requirements. A Clean Water Ad
404 Water Ousilty C, edilication may be required from the Ioc, si California Regional Waler Quaii~ Conlrd BoNd prior to issuanCe of the Corp~
404 permit.
3
,_.0,,(.DUSTY WILLIAMS
· Senior Civil Engineer :j.'
Date;
4
-r
orandu'm
F
'State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning & Research
1400 1Oth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention Marl Lewis
D~ARTMENT OF TRANSPORIATION
DiStrict 8
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
District Bus and Maintenance Facility
Dote I April 1, 1994
File No,, 08 -R~ v-79 -R3.9
SCH# 93092023
Temeoula Valley School
we have reviewed the above-referenced document and request
consideration of the following comments:
care should be taken when developing this project to
preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern
of the state highway. Particular consideration must be
given to cumulative inorease~ storm runoff to insure
that a highway drainage.problem is not created.
Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester
Road), opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Celttans
approve]. All matters regarding access, grading, an~
drainage ~hould be sent to~
Mr. Gerry Lunt
Development Review
California Department of Transportation
P.O, BoX 231
8an Bernardins, CA 92402
you have any questions, pleas~ contact La Keda johnson at
383-59~9 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Riverside County
Coordination Branch
LKJ:cl
1
2
AF'R
rL¢ OF 8ALIFORNIA
;)VERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
TENTH STREET .,,,.
CRAMiNTO CA95814
2994
PETE WILSON, Gl~.~nor
RF..CEIVED
APR 15 m94
011 OF TF,,MF. CULA
SAZSD ~XAsIH
CITY OF TgMECULA PLANNING
43174 BUSZNISS PARK DRIVE
TIKECULA, CA 92590
The state Clearinghouse has submitted the above nem~ draft Invitonmentel Zmpaet
Report (ZIR) to sereore6 Itahe agencies for review. The review period is no~ closed
And the gOretentS from the tampending agency(Lea) is(itS) enclosed. On the encloSe(i*
Notice of CompletAofi form you will no~e that the ~learLnghcuee hem checked the
age-ties that have oommen~ed. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that
your co~ent peeRlOw is complete. Z~ the teAmant package is not 1~ ordert please
notify the's~ata creatinghouse lmmedieteZy. Remember to refer to the pro~/et's
eigh~-dLgit 8~ate CXeetiaghouee number so that we ma~ reeland promptly.
Please note that section 211o4 of the california Public Resources Code req~ired
theft
"a telpone/big agency or other public agqncy shall only mak- -~ah~k^ntive
con~ents rege~,~' '!,'~e 6CtlvikI~r llSvc,l.v~d In a prc~ect ~hL~h ~re aS. thin
In area of e~lrtiee of the agency or which are re,/cited ~o be GetrAid
or epproved b~ the agency.~
commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their c~m/nents with
spellfAt documentation.
These Comments ere forwarded for your use in preparing your final SIR. Should you
need more information or ellrificatio~# we reoommlnd thl~ you contac~ the commenting
ThAI lette~ ackno~ledgee that you have oomplAed with the State OlearLnOhouse review
requiremen~s ~or draft enviroumental documents, pursuant ~0 the California
Znvironmen~al ~uality A0t. Please o~ntaut Marl Lames s~ (915) 44S-0~13 ~ you have
any questions regarding the envAronmtn~al review process.
SAnoctal}r,
Enclosures
~,~z Neescroll Agency
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 lggzt
Ans'd ............
A'I'FACHMENT NO. 5
SCHOOL DISTRICT L~- I I ER - COMMUNITY MEETING
R:',STAFFR]~"f~I57PA93.CC 6/7/94 kib '[ ~
October 19, 1993
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Patnc~a B. Novotney. Ed.D
RECEIVED
0 C T 2 I LQ 3
Ans 'd ...........
BOARD OF EDUCATLON
Rosle Vandernaak
DI Davlc~ Euncl~
Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 13 COMMUNITY MEETING SUMMARY
MAiNTEN/~NCB, OFERATIGNS, & TItANSPORTATION FACILITY
Dear Saied:
As discussed with you, our community meeting last week was very successful in informing the Roripaugh Hills and
Winchester Collection area residents of the subject project and addressing the concerns of these neighbors related
to the project.
As you know, we hand delivered approximately 900 invitations to the neighbors on October 8, and 12 neighbors
responded by attending the October 13 evening meeting. (See attached attendee list.) in general, the comments
from the 12 neighbors were positive toward the site and building design, and the following questions were raised:
1. What would be the working hours of this facility? Generally 6:00 AM - 5:00 PM
2. Would there be stadium lights at the adjacent high school site? No, par nigh school EIR.
3. Is there a need for a Margarita entrance stop lite? Being addressed in EIR traffic study, Doug Wood to follow up.
4. Is the 40 bus design capacity sufficient to support the complete build-out of the District? Yes.
E. Do the traffic studies address the recently completed Margarita extension? Doug Wood to follow up.
6. What is being incorporated in the design to reduce graffiti potential? trmes on bare walls.
7. What is the process for final approval of this project by the City ? January Planning Commission and City Council
hearings and EIR certification.
8. Would a footbridge across Santa Gertrudis Creek be feasible to serve the new High School? footbridge across
Highway 79? May be desirable but very costly and difficult to secure funding.
9. What will ultimately be the speed limit on Highway 79? Caltrans data needed.
10. Could property north of the high school site be set aside for a city park? City Planning Department
determination.
11. Wil~ the emissions from the buses be an impact to surrounding neighbors? No. SCAQMD testing data forwarded
to interested neighbors and included in EIR.
Also attached are our comments to Doug Wood on the Screencheck Draft EIR for this project. We have asked Doug
to do everything possible to work with you to be ready for the January 3 Planning Commission meeting, and the
January City Council meeting.
Thank you for combining the Planning Commission/City Council hearing notices, and for your continuing efforts to
keep this EIR on schedule.
,,~. ~ ·
Director of Facilities Development
cc: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, City of Temecula
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D.. Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Doug Wood. Douglas Wood and Associates
Tom Burke, BGRP
(SAIEU.OCT} 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAINTENANCE/TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
OCTOBER 13, 1993, 7:30 pm
MARGARITA MIDDLE SCHOOL
ATTENDEES LIST
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
NAME
Elise Turner
Nick & Irene Vultaggio
John & Annette Roberrs
Lee Dietz
Bob & Eileen Merrill
Robert Wyatt
Coleen Moorhouse
Ed & Marilyn Mowles
ADDRESS
39859 Creative Drive
39813 Creative Drive
27440 Bolandra Court
14507 Staring Street
39730 Barberry Court
39100 Rising Hill Drive
39534 Long Ridge Drive
27595 Dandelion Court
DAYTIME PHONE#
909-677-3225
909-677-2423
909-676-2528
909-699-1503
909-694-8419
639-1120
734-1111
909-677-5763
909-694-9649
ATTACHMENT NO, 6
FEE CHECKLIST
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Planning Application No. PA93-0157
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project (refer
to the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission Staff Report.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Ouimby)
Public Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
Condition of APProval
Condition No. 12
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. 89
Condition No. 52
N/A
YES
ITEM 18
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPRO~.~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER .
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning'
June 28, 1994
Planning Application No. PA93-0191, City Skateboard Ordinance
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
Adopt an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING, OR SIMILAR
ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS.
BACKGROUND
On November 9, 1993, due to numerous letters to the City Council from business owners, the
Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding on private
property in those areas designated by resolution of the Council. The Council further directed
staff to include provisions in the ordinance which would permit skateboarding on all public
streets and/or public sidewalks except in those areas designated by resolution of the City
Council and to address skateboarding, roller skating, and roller blading in public parks.
On May 2, 1994, staff presented to the Planning Commission a draft ordinance based upon
the Council's direction. The Commission recommended approval of the ordinance with only
minor modifications. The change was to delete the requirement for minors to wear knee,
elbow and wrist protection while skating on public property (see attachment No. 1 ).
In developing the Draft Ordinance, staff sought input from business owners, property owners
and property managers who had previously requested that the City adopt such an ordinance.
To date, there has been no response from any property owner, property manager or business
owner. In an attempt to discuss the Draft Ordinance with members of the skating community,
scheduled a meeting on April 14, 1994 at the Community Recreation Center (CRC) and staff
mailed a notice of the meeting to those skaters who were involved in the proposed skateboard
park at the CRC. However, none of the 15 invited skaters attended the meeting or contacted
staff about the ordinance. Staff has sent copies of the draft ordinance to various City
departments and the Temecula Police Department, and their comments have been incorporated
into the Draft Ordinance.
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA9:~,CC 6/20/9/, kLb 1
In addition to soliciting input, staff reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions. The Draft
Ordinance includes various elements of other cities adopted ordinances which staff felt
addressed the needs of Temecula.
DISCUSSION
Skateboardine on Private Prooertv
The proposed Draft Ordinance would provide private property owners with the ability to
request that their property be posted as a "No Skateboarding" area. The property owner, or
their representative would make application to the Planning Department for approval to place
signs designating their property a "No Skateboarding" area. The applicant would provide a
site plan indicating the number and location of the signs. Planning staff and the Police
Department would then review and approve the site plan to ensure the location and number
of signs is adequate. Staff would then prepare a notice of public hearing and a resolution for
the next available City Council Meeting.
Skateboardina on Public Prooertv
Upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works, the Council may designate certain
public roadways, sidewalks or other public properties as a "No Skateboarding" area. The
process for posting public property would be similar to that on private property with regards
to Planning and Police Department review and public noticing. Skateboarding activities would
be restricted only in these designated areas in public rights-of-way; the limitations would not
be city wide. The City would be responsible for securing, posting and maintaining the
necessary signage.
Postinq of Sians
The Draft Ordinance requires that private property owners secure, post and maintain the "No
Skateboarding" signs. To ensure that all signage is uniform throughout the City, staff has
prepared a sample sign (see Exhibit 4a). All private property owners posting "No
Skateboarding" signs would be required to use this format. The Draft Ordinance also provides
the Council with the ability to establish a fee for posting the signs for private property owners.
However, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that all signs on private
property be posted by the property owner.
Penalties
The Draft Ordinance provides for the first two violations to be infractions with a 925.00 fine
for a first violation of the ordinance and 950.00for a second violation. Subsequent violations
would be a misdemeanor. The fee penalties are comparable with those of other jurisdictions.
FISCAL IMPACT
Each sign posted by the City of Temecula will cost approximately 9125 per sign. This cost
will include both the printing and posting of the sign.
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.CC 6/20/94 ktb 2
Attachments:
City Council Ordinance No. 94- - Page 4
PC Resolution No, 94-11 - Page 10
Exhibit - Proposed "No Skateboarding" Sign - Page 12
R:\STAFFRPT\191PAg],CC 6120194 k[b 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.CC 6/20/94 ktb 4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TE1VIECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.36 TO TRE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROHIBITING
SKATEBOARDING, ROLLERBLADING, OR SIMHJAR ACTIVITIES IN
CERTAIN DESIGNATRD AREAS.
~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HERERY ORDAIN
AS FOIJ~OWS:
Section 1. Chapter 10.36 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Chapter 10.36
SKATEBOARDING, ROLLPRBLADING OR SIMILAR
ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS
SECTIONS
10.36.010
10.36.020
10.36.030
10.36.040
10.36.050
10.36.060
10.36.070
10.36.080
Definitions
General Prohibition
Designation of Private Property as No Skateboarding Area
Designation of Public Property as No Skateboarding Area
Posting of Signs Required, Content
Fees set by Resolution
Penalties
Exemptions from the Provisions of this Chapter
10.36.010 Definitions
As used in this Chapter, the foliowing terms shall have the meanings set forth herein:
A. "Private Property" shall mean any property held by private interests winch is used
primarily for business, commercial, retail, office space, business park, religious, multi-family
or recreational ptaposes. This shall also include the sidewalks contained within the private
property (Amended by the planning Comm|~sinn May 2, 1~)4), parking lots, alleys and
parking facilities for these "Private Property" areas.
B. "Public Property" shall mean any property owned or maintained by the City of
Temecula, Temecula Valley Unified School District, County of Riverside and any public utility
with the geographical (Amended by the Planning Comml~sion May 2, 1994) boundaries of the
City of Temecula.
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.CC 6/22/9~ ktb 5
D. "Skateboard" shall mean a board of any material, designed for the user/rider to
stand or sit upon, which has wheels attached to it and which, if propelled or moved by human,
gravitational, or mechanical power, and to which no separate steering mechanism is attached
which directly controls the turning of the wheels or no mechanical braking system which will
allow the rider to safely stop the wheel(s).
10.36.020 General Prohibition
A. It shall be unlawful and subject to punishment in accordance with section
10.36.070 of this Chapter, for any person utilizing or riding upon any skateboard, rollerblades
or any similar device to ride or move about in or on any public or private property when the
same property has been designated by Resolution of the City Council and posted as a No
Skateboard, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area.
B. No person shall use a skateboard, rollerblades or any similar device outside of a
designated No Skateboard, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area in a manner which creates a
nuisance. For the purpose of this Chapter "nuisance" is defmed as any activity which:
1. Threatens injury to any person or property, public or private;
2. Creates an obstruction or presents a hazard to the free and unrestricted use of
public or private property by pedestrians or motorists; or
3. Generates loud or unreasonable noise.
C. No pcrson under the age of 18 years shall use a skatoboard, rollerblades, or
similar device on public property unless the person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads and lcnec
~a~a. (Deleted per Planning Commission direction May 2, 1994).
10.36.030
Designation of Private Property as No Skateboarding. Rollerblading or Similar
Activity Area
A. If the property is owner-occupied property, the owner shall submit a written
application requesting a designation of a No Skateboarding, Rollerblaring or Similar Activity
Area.
B. If the property is occupied by tenants of the owner, then the tenants shall submit
a written application with 2/3 (66%) of the tenants on the property supporting a designation of
No Skateboarding, Rollerbtading or Similar Activity Area and the application shall also contain
the written consent of the property owner or his or her designated representative.
C. The City Council may, by Resolution, designate a private property as a No
Skateboarding, Rollerbhding or Similar Activity Area. The City Council shall designate such
areas and the times when such activity would be prohibited and order the posting of appropriate
signage in accordance with Section 10.36.050 of this Chapter.
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93,CC 6/20/94 ktb 6
D. The City Clerk shall cause notice of City Council consideration of this application
to be published in any newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to City
Council consideration.
10.36.040
Designation of Public Property as No Skateboarding. Rollerblading or Similar
Activity Area
A. The City Council may, upon review and recommendation by the Director of
Public Works, designate any public roadway, sidewalk, or other public property as a No
Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area. The City Council shall designate such
area and the times when such activity would be prohibited by Resolution and order the posting
of appropriate signage in accordance with Section 10.36.050 of this Chapter.
10.36.050 Posting of Signs Required. Content
A. Prior to the enforcement of the prohibition on skateboarding, rollerblading or
similar activities, the area so designated shall be posted with signs which provide substantiaily
as follows:
"Skateboarding, roilerblading or similar activity, is prohibited by
Temecula Municipal Code Section 10.36.020. Any violation is
punishable by a free of $25.00 for the first offense. City of
Temecula Police Department 696-3000."
B. Such prohibition shall apply to the property or area so designated once the
property or area has been posted with signs in plain view at all entrances to the property or area.
Signs so posted at the entrances to the property or area, shall comply with the California Vehicle
Section 22658 (a)(1). These signs will be 17" x 22" with lettering not less than one inch in
height. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner or tenant(s) to post and maintain all
signs prohibiting skateboarding.
10.36.060 Fees set by Resolution
A. The City Council may, by Resolution, establish fees for the receipt and processing
of any applications for No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Areas. In addition
the City Council may, by Resolution, establish fees sufficient to cover the costs of developing,
printing and posting the areas designated pursuant to this Chapter.
10.36.070 Penalties
A. Any violation of this Chapter is deemed an infraction, punishable by a fme of
$25.00. A second violation of this Chapter shall be punishable by a f'me of $50.00. All
subsequent violations shall be deemed a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with Section 1.20
of this Code.
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA9S.CC 6/20/9~ ktb 7
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,
199 .
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 -__ was duly introduced and placed upon its furst reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEIVlBERS
COLINCH -MEMBERS
COtINCH ,MEMBERS
JUNE S. GI~F.h":K
CITY CLgRK
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93,CC 6/20/94 ktb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - MAY 2, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA9~.CC 6120/94 ktb 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Planning Al~plication No.: PA93-0191
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94-_ recommending the City
Council Adopt an Ordinance which would prohibit
Skateboarding, Rollerblading and Similar Activities in
Certain Designated Areas of the City based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
To adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt an
ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding, rollerblading and
similar activities in certain designated areas of the City.
LOCATION: City Wide
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months, the City has received numerous requests from property owners
to adopt an ordinance that would prohibit skateboarding, rollerblading and similar activities in
certain areas of the City. The property owners feel that skateboarding, rollerblading and
similar activities have damaged their property and pose a threat to public safety. On
November 9, 1993, staff presented a report to the City Council which outlined alternatives for
a potential ordinance for both public and private property. The Council recommeded staff
prepare an ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding on private property in those areas
designated by resolution of the Council. The Council further directed staff that the ordinance
permit skateboarding on all public streets and/or public sidewalks except in those areas
designated by resolution of the City Council and to address skateboarding, roller skating, and
roller blading in public parks.
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 Idb
DISCUSSION
Overview
In developing the Draft Ordinace, staff has sought input from business owners, property
owners and property managers who had previously requested that the City adopt such an
ordinance. To date, there has been no response from any property owner, property manager
or business owner. in an attempt to discuss the Draft Ordinance with members of the skating
community, staff scheduled a meeting on April 14, 1994 at the Community Recreation Center
(CRC) and staff mailed a notice of the meeting to those skaters who were involved in the
proposed skateboard park at the CRC. However, none of the 15 invited skaters artended the
meeting or contacted staff about the ordinance. Staff has sent copies of the draft ordinance
to various City departments and the Temecula Police Department, and their comments have
been incorporated into the Draft Ordinance.
In addition to soliciting input, staff reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions. The Draft
Ordinance includes various elements of other cities adopted ordinances which staff felt
addressed the needs of Temecula.
Skateboardino on Private Pronertv
The proposed Draft Ordinance would provide private property owners with the ability to
request that their property be posted as a "No Skateboarding" area. The property owner, or
their representative would make application to the Planning Department signs designating the
property a "No Skateboarding" area. The applicant would provide a site plan indicating the
number and location of the signs. Planning staff and the Police Department would then review
and approve the site plan to ensure the location and number of signs is adequate. Staff would
then prepare a notice of public hearing and a resolution for the next available City Council
Meeting.
Skateboardino on Public Prooertv
Upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works, the Council may designate certain
public roadways, sidewalks or other public properties as a "No Skateboarding" area. The
process for posting public property would be similar to that on private property with regards
to Police Department review and public noticing. Skateboarding activities would be restricted
only in these designated areas in public right-of-way; the limitations would not be city wide.
The City would be responsible for securing, posting and maintaining the necessary signage.
Postino of Sions
The Draft Ordinance requires that private property owners secure, post and maintain the "No
Skateboarding" signs. To ensure that all signage is uniform throughout the City, staff has
prepared a sample sign (see Exhibit 4a). All private property owners posting "No
Skateboarding" signs would be required to use this format. The Draft Ordinance also provides
the Council with the ability to establish a fee for posting the signs for private property owners.
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 2
Penalties
The Draft Ordinance provides for the first two violations to be infractions with a ~25.00 fine
for a first violation of the ordinance and $50.00 for a second violation. Subsequent violations
would be a misdemeanor. The fee penalties are comparable with those of other jurisdictions.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, subsequent to Section
15061 (b)(3).
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. It is staff's opinion that the proposed
ordinance will reduce potential conflicts between skaters and the general public on both
private and public property.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed Skateboard Ordinance will provide for a safe and secure community free
from the threat of personal injury and loss of property.
2. The proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan through the
creation of a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and
loss of property.
3. The proposed Skateboard Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant
impact on the environment and staff has determined that the project is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061
(b)(3).
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution No. 94- o Blue Page 4
Draft City Council Ordinance No. 94- - Blue Page 7
City Council Minutes - November 9, 1993 - Blue Page 13
Exhibits - Blue Page 14
a. Proposed "No Skateboarding" Sign
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28/94 klb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 4
AT~ACHlvfF_ANT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THF~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION
OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD PROH1RIT
SKATI~ROARDING, ROI,I,ERBLADING AND SIIVlrI,AR
ACTIVrrI~S IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS OF TttE
CITY
Vv'YIEREAS, skateboardillg, rollerbl3ding and sil~ilar activities have the potential to
cause personal injury to the general public; and
Wvw~REAS, skateboarding, rolleeolading and similar activities pose a threat to public
and private property; and,
WItF~REAS, the proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan;
and,
WItEREAS, that this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinances; and,
WtW. REAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall; County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, Temecula Town Association and the Temecula
Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
Wltl~.REAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 2, 1994, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition.
NOW, TYII~REFO RE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TYIE~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOIJ~OWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula fmds that the
proposed Skateboard Ordinance will provide for a safe and secure community free from the
threat of personal injury and loss of property.
Section 2. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecuh further finds that
the proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan through the creation of
a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property.
Sectinn 3. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula funher finds that
the proposed Skateboard Ordinance does not have the potop~al to cause a significant impact on
the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3).
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28/94 kJb 5
Section 4. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula hereby recommends
to the City Council that the Council adopt the proposed Skateboard Ordinance. This Ordinance
is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
199_.
__ day of
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ltl~.RI~.Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the __ day of
, 199__ by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNBIlJ.
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPTH91PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~191PAe3.PC 4/28./94 Idb 7
ATTACHMENT NO, 3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1993
R:%STAFFRPT%q91PA93.PC 4/28/94 kJb 13
City Council Minutes November 9, 1993
14. Rh3ht-of-Wav Weed Control Prooram for Fiscal Year 1993-94
Councilmember Stone asked since only one bid was received, if the Department
checked to see if this is competitive pricing.
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet stated four companies were contacted, but Pest
Masters has a franchise in Temecula and does not have the travel expense of other
companies. He stated most other cities provide this service in house, however this
contractor does work for CalTrans and the City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that
various licenses are required to perform this type of service.
Councilmember Stone asked if the City has qualified people to perform this service in-
house. Mr. Serlet answered that the City does not, at this time, have qualified people
or the man-power to perform these duties.
Mayor Mu~oz asked that an "environmentally friendly" approach to this problem be
investigated.
It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
14.1
Award contract for Fiscal Year 1993-94 Right-of-Way Weed Control
Program to Pestmaster Services, the lowest responsible bidder, for the
sum of $29,250.
The motion was unanimously carried as follows:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone,
Mu~oz
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL BUSINESS
19. Consideration of Proposed Skateboard Ordinance
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks stated he has received letters of complaint from business owners
regarding skateboarding on private property and asked if the City has received similar
letters.
Director Thornhill stated that he has received letters from business owners in the
Tower Plaza and Palm Plaza regarding the need to address the skateboarding issue.
Ciw Council Minutes November 9.1993
He requested direction from the Council on how they would like staff to proceed. Mr.
Thornhill reported that the Police Department feels skateboarding should be permitted
on all public streets and sidewalks, except as designated by Resolution, and asked if
the Council wishes to enforce regulations on private property.
Mayor Mur~oz stated he has a concern about skateboarding in commercial centers and
asked what staff's position is on this issue.
Mr. Thornhill stated that it is not unusual for cities to prohibit skateboarding in
commercial centers, however, typically cities are most involved with enforcement on
sidewalks and streets.
Mayor Pro Tom Roberts stated he does not have a problem with prohibiting
skateboarding on private property if requested by property owners, however he feels
skateboarding should be allowed on public streets and sidewalks.
Councilmember Stone stated he would be against any ordinance prohibiting
skateboarding in public streets and sidewalks, but would like to see an ordinance
addressed to commercial properties at the request of property owners. He stated he
does feel that skateboarding should be prohibited on certain busy streets, such as
"Ynez."
Councilmember Birdsall asked that this ordinance also address roller blades and roller
skating.
It was approved by consensus to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance that supports
staff recommendation//'2, "That prohibits skateboarding on private property in those
areas designate by resolution of the Council. This would require property owners to
petition the City for prohibition of skateboarding for a particular property," and staff
recommendation/f3 "That would permit skateboarding on all public streets and/or
public sidewalks except those areas designate by resolution of the City Council" and
further directed that the proposed ordinance will also be drafted to address use in
public parks and will additionally cover roller skates and roller blades.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
20.
APPeal of Plannino Commission AoDroval of Planning Aoolication NO. 93-0158.
Amendment No. I - Expansion to the Existing Temecula Valley Unified School District
Facilitv in Two Phases
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. He stated staff
recommends the addition of new Conditions of Approval Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17,
with respect to truck deliveries, outside lighting, ingress and egress via the existing
gate, incorporated additional conditions on landscaping to better screen warehouse
facilities and finally required that any storage of hazardous materials be reviewed and
approved by Riverside County Fire and Health Department.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PROPOSED "NO SKATEBOARDING" SIGN
R:\STAFFRPT\191PAg~.CC 6120194 kLb 11
cc: City Council
G. Thornhill
April 22, 1994
39668 Firethorn Ct.
Murrieta Ca, 92562
Patricia Birdsall, Councilwoman
City of Temecula
43174 Businass Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Councilwoman Patricia Birdsall,
I am writing to you, councilwoman of Temecula, because just
recently something important was brought to my attention.
It is on the subject of skateboarding. First off my son
skateboards and we are both thankful for the proposed
skateboard park that is scheduled to be built in Temecula.
But, today there was an article in The Californian that
stated that skateboarding will be prohibited from public and
private property. I can understand it being prohibited on
private property but not on public property. That just isn't
fair for these skaters of all ages not being aloud to do
something that they enjoy. Skateboarding is a sport just
like baseball or any other. It takes talent for someone to
skateboard just as it does for other sports, if not more.
The article also read that the city is not waiting for the
park to open first before the ordinance goes into effect.
This is absurd if you ask me. If skateboarding is banned
then wher are these talented youth going to go especially
if the park is not open. I would really like to hear your
opinions on this subject. Thank you for your time and
attention.
Sincerely,
Steve Manning
ITEM 19
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning.'
June 28,1994
Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of Planning Application No. PA94-
0019, Plot Plan for the Black Angus Restaurant
Prepared By:
Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the City Council:
Adopt:
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA94-0019, AND;
Adopt a resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019 - APPEAL, REVERSING
THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,200 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 921-270-047
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 1994, the Temecula Planning Commission heard Planning Application No. 94-
0019. After the public hearing and Commission discussion, a motion was made to approve
the project. However, the vote was 2-2 (with Commissioner Fahey) and the project was
denied.
DISCUSSION
The two dissenting commissioners stated various concerns about the project. Commissioner
Salyer expressed concerns relating to traffic patterns and traffic flow to the project.
Commissioner Salyer further stated that he did not concur with the results of the traffic study
which found that the project would not result in significant increases in traffic on Ynez Road.
Commissioner Blair stated that she did not feel the project contained adequate parking, that
the project would be better located in the middle of the shopping center, and that it is
currently difficult to get to the portion of the shopping center where the project is proposed.
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA91,.CC 6/20/94 k~b 1
With respect to circulation in and out of the site, the Public Works Department feels that the
recent widening of Ynez Road to its ultimate width, and the associated traffic signal
installations, provide for adequate circulation. The approved traffic study prepared for the
project (see Planning Commission staff report attachment No. 5) identified one mitigation
measure. The mitigation measure, lengthening of the northbound left*turn signal timing for
the middle driveway into the shopping center from Ynez Road, has already been performed
by staff. This intersection is currently functioning at a acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "C" .
Second, the traffic study determined that, as a result of this project, traffic at the intersection
of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road will increase 1.43% at peak hour, Per City policy,
for a traffic increase to be considered significant, the increase would have to exceed 5%.
Therefore, staff feels that the traffic concerns raised by the Commission have been adequately
addressed and mitigated (see Public Works Department Memo date June 14, 1994).
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution No. 94- - Page 3
Conditions of Approval - Page 8
Planning Commission Staff Report, June 2, 1994 - Page 9
Public Works Department Memo, June 14, 1994- Page 10
Planning Commission Draft Minutes, June 2, 1994 - Page 11
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6120/~ ktb 2
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 ktb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AlPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019 -
APPEAL, REVERSING ~ DECISION OF ~ PLANNING
CO1VIMISSION TO DENY ~ CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,200 SQUARE
FOOT RESTAURANT ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES
LOCATED ON ~ NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 921-270-047
WHEREAS, Troy McClellan, on behalf of ARG, Inc., fried Planning Application No.
PA94-0019 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land
Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0019 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0019
on June 6, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WItRREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0019;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said heaxing, the Commission denied Planning
Application No. PA 94-0019;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the appeal of Planning Application No. PA94-
0019 on June 28, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Council considered all facts rehting
to Planning Application No. PA94-0019;
NOW, T~EREFORE, TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Seaion 2. Findines. The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-
0019 makes the following f'mdings:
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94,CC 6/20/94 klb 4
A. 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.
B. The City Council, in approving proposed Planning Application No. PA94-0019,
makes the following specific findings, to wit:
1. PA94-0019, Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the
fact that the restaurant use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway
Tourist Commercial.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets
all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because the use does not rapresent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the
area and the use is similar to the surrounding commercial uses.
5. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws
due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
6. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Ynez Road.
8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the
fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
9. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA9~.CC 6/20/9~ ktb 5
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0019, as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding proper~y.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves
Plarming Application No. PA94-0019 to construct a 10,200 square foot building for a Black
Angus Restaurant located on the northwesterly comer of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road
and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-270-047 subject to the foliowing conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
R:\STAFFRPT\~9PA94.CC 6/20/9~ ktb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 ktb 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan
Project Description: The construction and operation of a 10,200 square foot Black
Angus restaurant, wall signage and one on-site monument sign
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-270-047
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00), which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred Fifty Dollars (91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish
and Game Code Section 711,4(d)(2) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) County
administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under
Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section
15075, If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the
project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0019. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify
the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. 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 Exhibit "A", and
approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0019, or as amended by these
conditions.
R:~STAFFRPT\19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 kib
5. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits "D" & "E", or as amended
by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C", or as amended
by these conditions. (color elevations and material board).
Materials:
Stucco
Stucco-Accent
Metals
Awning
Roof
Wood Truss
Neon Tube
Colors: Amarillo White
Frazee 5444 D (Grey)
Frazee 6285 R (Rust)
Sunbrella Burgundy 4631
Maxi Tile - Slate Grey
Olympic Espresso
Red
Signage for the proposed project shall comply with exhibit "F", or as amended by these
conditions. The proposed monument sign shall not include advertisement for of-site
businesses.
A minimum of 118 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348.118 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit "A".
A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
10. 4 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
11.
Deliveries to the building shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 am. In
addition, the drive aisle to adjacent to the northerly side of the building, between the
restaurant and the service station shall be posted "No Parking at Any Time."
12.
At no time shall delivery vehicles be parked within the drive aisle adjacent to the
northerly side of the building, between the restaurant and the service station.
13.
The water feature on the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road shall not be
constructed with-in the ultimate right-of-way of Rancho California Road.
14.
All existing trees along Rancho California Road shall be preserved on site. A notation
on the construction landscape plans shall state that all existing trees shall be preserved
on site.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15, Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view,
16.
The applicant shall make application and pay applicable application fee for Consistency
Check with the Department of Building and Safety.
17.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Construction Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94CC,COA 6/20/94 klb
be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and
within the parking areas.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
19.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans, except as amended herein.
20.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the
Department of Planning.
21.
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 if 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
inches, 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 telephone
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.
22.
Additional landscaping shall be required to provide sufficient screening, if deemed
necessary by the Director of Planning.
23.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
25.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
26.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
37.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board;
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board;
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
Community Services District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
38.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
39.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
40.
An erosion control plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
,,1.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department, the Community Services District, and the Department of Public Works for
review. (Including the parkways in addition to private landscaping).
42.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
43.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
44.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
45.
Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or
underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb
46.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including upgrading or upsizing
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or obtaining a letter of approval
as directed by the Department of Public Works. The adequacy of the capacity of
existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified.
47.
A drainage easement or a letter of approval shall be obtained from affected property
owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto adjacent property.
A copy of the drainage easement, prior to recordation, or the letter of approval shall
be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The location of the
recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading plan.
48.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
49.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be
submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility,
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits
50.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
51.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
a. Landscaping (slopes, medians, and parkways).
b. Erosion control and slope protection.
52.
All landscaping within the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road,
adjacent to Tower Plaza, shall be completed. Plans shall be designed in compliance
with City Standards and approved by the Planning Department.
R:\STAFFRPT\lgPA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
53.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works; and
The Community Services District.
54.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
55.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
56.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
57.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
58.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which the Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer, Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest
the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact
fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact
fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy
59.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison;
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb
Southern California Gas;
Planning Department; and
Department of Public Works.
60.
All on-site improvements and landscape improvements including the landscaping within
the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, adjacent to Tower Plaza,
shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards.
61.
Adjacent to Tower Plaza, Rancho California Road is classified as an Urban Arterial
Highway with a 134foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Element of the City
of Temecula General Plan. There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and
an additional 12 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot offer
of dedication shall be made to the City of Temecula on Rancho California Road along
Tower Plaza.
62. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
63.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed, Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
64.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
65.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Geologist transmittal dated April 21, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
66.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations from the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health,
67.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 29, 1994,
a copy of which is attached.
68.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District transmittel dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
69.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94CC.COA 6/20/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
JUNE 2, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 kLb 9
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 1994
Planning Application No.: PA94-0019# Plot Plan
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT The Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan; and
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 94--- approving PA94-0019, Plot
Plan, based upon the Analysis and Findings, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval contained in the
Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
ARG Enterprises, Inc
Troy McClellan, Form Guild Architects
A Plot Plan application to construct a 10,200 square foot
Black Angus restaurant on a vacant parcel of land.
Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez
Road
General Commercial (C-P)
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P (General Commercial)
S-P (Specific Plan 180)
C-P (General Commercial)
Interstate 15
Highway Tourist Commercial
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
AM/PM Gas Station
Embassy Suites Hotel
Tower Center Commercial Center
Interstate 15
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb
PROJECT STATISTICS
Parking
Standard 76
Compact 36
Handicapped _~6
Total 118
Number of Restaurant Seats 324
Site Area Calculation
Use Square feet % of site
Building Area 10,200 12%
Landscaping 19,565 23%
Paving/Parking 54,392 65%
TOTAL 84,157 100%
BACKGROUND
On March 17, 1994, the applicant submitted Planning Application No. PA94-0019 for a
restaurant. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for the project was held on
April 7, 1994. At the conclusion of the DRC meeting, staff requested the applicant make
several changes to the site and landscape plans to comply with various City requirements.
Subsequent to the DRC meeting, the applicant made the necessary changes to staff's
satisfaction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is for the construction of a 10,200 square foot Black Angus restaurant
on a vacant 1.9 acre parcel of land, a monument sign and wall signs. The building pad was
previously mass graded as part of the underlying map. In addition to the restaurant building,
the project will include a total of 118 parking spaces and 19,565 square feet of landscaping.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan
The proposed project is located on the northwesterly corner of Rancho California Road and
Ynez Road. The project shares common drive aisles for access to Ynez Road with the
adjacent Chili's restaurant and Arco AM/PM gas station, and the nearby Tower Center
shopping center. The project will also share a common drive aisle located between the
restaurant and the AM/PM. Patrons of the gas station use the drive aisle to exit the station
and the restaurant will use the aisle for deliveries. To ensure that the aisle is clear for both
the gas station and emergency vehicles, the drive aisle will be posted as a no parking area (see
condition No. 12), deliveries to the restaurant will be restricted to the hours between 6:00 am
and 10:00 am (see condition No. 12) and no parking will be permitted in said drive aisle (see
condition No. 13). Restaurant delivery trucks will park in front of the restaurant entrance and
hand-carry supplies to the service delivery door located on the northerly side of the building.
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 2
The site plan incorporates a pedestrian walkway that provides access from Rancho California
Road to the main entrance, located on the westerly side of the building. The site plan also
provides outdoor waiting and a drop-off areas.
Architecture
The proposed building has been designed with materials to be compatible with the surrounding
buildings. The materials include Amarillo white stucco, slate grey tile roof, burgundy awnings
and wood trusses. It is staff's opinion that the structure will be compatible with the existing
buildings in the vicinity.
Siqnaqe
The proposed signage on the building meets the requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
However, the proposed on-site monument sign does not meet the requirements of City
Ordinance No. 93-09. The sign is to be located on the corner of Ynez Road and Rancho
California Road (see Exhibit "G"), and proposes the names of the three businesses, the Black
Angus, and two businesses located on adjoining (off-site) parcels. However, City Ordinance
No. 93-09 expressly prohibits off-site commercial signs. Further, Section 4 of Ordinance No.
93-09 states "no application for sign location plan, plot plan or other application discretionary
entitlement for an outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approved.
Therefore, staff has conditioned the project to permit the on-site tenant as permitted by City
Ordinance No. 93-09 (see condition No. 8).
Landscaoino
Ordinance No. 348 requires that a minimum of 10% of the parking area be landscaped. The
proposed plan provides for approximately 23% of the site to be landscaped. The landscaping
palette has been designed to be compatible with the existing landscaping of the surrounding
properties. The prominent design element of the plan is a water feature on the corner of
Rancho California Road and Ynez Road (see Exhibit "G")o The water feature incorporates the
design element of the corner properties on the southerly side of Rancho California Road.
Parkinq
Ordinance No. 348 requires that the project contain one parking space for every three seats
for a total of 108 spaces. The applicant has provided 76 standard parking spaces, 36 compact
spaces and 6 handicapped spaces. The total of 118 parking spaces exceeds the City's
requirements by 10 spaces.
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned C-P (General Commercial). Adjacent parcels to the North and East
are zoned General Commercial, Specific Plan to the South and Interstate 15 to the West. The
proposed restaurant use is consistent with the requirements of the C-P Zone and Sections
18.30 and 18.43 of Ordinance 348 which requires that the proposed use not pose a threat
to public health, safety and general welfare of the community.
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94,PC 6/1/94 klb 3
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Ynez Road.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact
that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan,
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - Blue Page 6
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 20
Exhibits - Blue Page 21
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
Traffic Study o Blue Page 22
Ordinance No. 93-09 - Blue Page 23
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.pC 611194 klb 5
A'i'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT%lePA94.PC 6/1194 klb 6
ATrAC~ NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TItF. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019 TO CONSTRUCT A 10,200
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A PARCI~-L
CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND
RANCHO CALII~ORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCI~J. NO. 921-270047
Wt~REAS, Troy McClellan, on behalf of ARG, Inc., fried Planning Application No.
PA94-0019 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land
Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WItR~REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0019 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
~, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0019
on June 6, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHERE., at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0019;
NOW, TI:I~.P~J~RE, THE~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findin2s. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA94-0019 makes the foliowing fmdings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
fmdings 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 weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
R:\STAFFRPT\lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 tdb 7
B. The Planning Commission, in approving preposed Planning Application No.
PA94-0019, makes the following specific findings, to wit:
1. PA94-0019, Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the
fact that the restaurant use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway
Tourist Commercial.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets
all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or general weftare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30.
4. The proposal wffi not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the
area and the use is similar to the surrounding commercial uses.
5. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws
due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
6. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation paRems, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Ynez Road.
8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the
fact that the Conditions of Approval pwvide for the necessary mitigation for the pwject.
9. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0019, as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of ks proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepaxed for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
R:\STAFFRPTX19PA94,PC 6/1/94 klb 8
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA94-0019 to expand an existing automobile dealership
located on the northwesterly comer of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 921-270-047 subject to the foliowing conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 199__ by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONF_3~:
PLANNING COMISSIONF, RS:
GARY THORNI-KLL
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 8/1/94 klb 9
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 811/94 Idb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan
Project Description: The construction and operation of a 10,200 square foot Black
Angus restaurant, wall signage and one on-site monument sign
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-270-047
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328o00), which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred Fifty Dollars (91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish
and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County
administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under
Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section
15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the
project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0019. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify
the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. 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.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1194 Idb 11
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A", and
approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0019, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits "D" & "E", or as amended
by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C" , or as amended
by these conditions. (color elevations and material board).
Materials:
Stucco
Stucco-Accent
Metals
Awning
Roof
Wood Truss
Neon Tube
Colors: Amarillo White
Frazee 5444 D (Grey)
Frazee 6285 R (Rust)
Sunbrella Burgundy 4631
Maxi Tile - Slate Grey
Olympic Espresso
Red
Signage for the proposed project shall comply with exhibit "F" , or as amended by these
conditions. The proposed monument sign shall not include advertisement for of-site
businesses.
A minimum of I 18 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 118 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit "A".
A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
10. 2 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
11.
Deliveries to the building shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 am. In
addition, the drive aisle to adjacent to the northerly side of the building, between the
restaurant and the service station shall be posted "No Parking at Any Time."
12.
At no time shall delivery vehicles be parked within the drive aisle adjacent to the
northerly side of the building, between the restaurant and the service station.
13.
The water feature on the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road shall not be
constructed with-in the ultimate right-of-way of Rancho California Road.
14.
All existing trees along Rancho California Road shall be preserved on site. A notation
on the construction landscape plans shall state that all existing trees shall be preserved
on site.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
R:\~TAFFRPT~1SPA94.PC 8/1/94 klb 12
16.
The applicant shall make application and pay applicable application fee for Consistency
Check with the Department of Building and Safety.
17.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Construction Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and
within the parking areas.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
19.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans, except as amended herein.
20.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the
Department of Planning.
21.
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 if 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
inches, 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 telephone
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.
22.
Additional landscaping shall be required to provide sufficient screening, if deemed
necessary by the Director of Planning.
23.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.pC 8/1194 klb 13
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
25.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
26.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
28.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility
regulations.
29.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
30.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
31.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
32.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
33.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all on-site flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
34.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 14
35.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
36. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
37.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board;
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board;
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
Community Services District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
38.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
39.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
40.
An erosion control plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
41.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department, the Community Services District, and the Department of Public Works for
review. (Including the parkways in addition to private landscaping).
42.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
43.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
R:~STAFFRPT\1SPA94.PC 8/1194 klb 15
44.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
45.
Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or
underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
46.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including upgrading or upsizing
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or obtaining a letter of approval
as directed by the Department of Public Works. The adequacy of the capacity of
existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified.
47.
A drainage easement or a letter of approval shall be obtained from affected property
owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto adjacent property.
A copy of the drainage easement, prior to recordation, or the letter of approval shall
be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The location of the
recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading plan.
48.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
49.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be
submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits
50,
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
51.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
a. Landscaping (slopes, medians, and parkways).
b. Erosion control and slope protection.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1194 klb 16
Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy
59.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison;
Southern California Gas;
Planning Department; and
Department of Public Works.
60.
All on-site improvementsand landscape improvements including the landscaping within
the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, adjacent to Tower Plaza,
shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards.
61.
Adjacent to Tower Plaza, Rancho California Road is classified as an Urban Arterial
Highway with e 134 foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Element of the City
of Temecula General Plan. There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and
an additional 12 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot offer
of dedication shall be made to the City of Temecula on Rancho California Road along
Tower Plaza.
62. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
63.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
64.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
65.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Geologist transmittal dated April 21, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
66.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 29, 1994,
a copy of which is attached.
67.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 18
68. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFI!}T%lgPA94.PC 8/1194 klb 19
April 21, 1994
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEIWENT AGENCY
PlanninE Department
MEMORANDUM
A/~aJ.~
Direaor of Planning
TO: Craig Ruiz - City of Temecula - Planning Department ~
FROM: Steve Kupferman - Engineering Geologist
Riverside County Planning Department
a
City of Temecu'la Case No.: PA-94-0019
County GeologicReport.;Nos."~6.29:.-and 857~:
City of Temecd'ia ....'::':'.': /"::':""~::":'::::;!Y-!}:.. ":";':..:!.' '
This project siteis?locat'ed.:in,th~'AiqUist'Priolo. Earthquake Fault
Zone and is.':=ccvere~.:'b~;pre~iau~!y".prapared.geol0gic reports.
County Geologic Report' NG'. 629 'included'an exploratory geologic
trench on theproject..si~e:and!::~ona~uded that active""'faults do not
traverse the eits...:.::i;;;e~t~,'~?:~iX:~!~i! Report Nc.:.eS.~!"included a
trench directly adjacent tc and n~z~::i!;~f:.thei;~!.subS'ect site and also
concluded that no active faults tra~e!';;~h~;;a~'~snt site. Copies
of letters apprcving these reportS'are attached=..
Based on the above, a geologic report to e~alUate:~he earthquake
fault zone is not necessary for this p~Oject. I~::'.is recommended
that a g.eotechnical report, addressing soils and foundation
conditions atthe site, be prepared prior to issuance of:grading or
building permits. ' .........................
Please d'o not hesitate to call me at (909) 275-32~1 if you need
further assistance.
RECEIVED
..... APR 2 2 i99z)
4080 Lemtm Street, 91h FlooroRivenid~, California 925010(909) 275-3200
P. O. Box 14090Riversid~, California 92502-1409,FAX (909)275-3157
RIVER_,DE COUNTY PLANK
JG DEPARTMENT
Joseph A. Richorals, Planning Director
Keith D. Downs, A.I.C.P., Assistant Director
Jtlne 29, 1993
SEACOR
1180 Nevada Street, Suite 200
Redlands, CA 92374-2843
Attention: Paul Davis
Nicholas Selmeczy
RE: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Job Number 40007-049-02
CU 93-089
APN: 921-270-041
County Geologic Report No. 857
City of Temecula
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed your report entitled "Fault Investigation Report,
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Proposed ARCOta/PN Facility,
Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA," dated June 11,
1993; and your "Addendumto Fault Investigation Report," dated June
25, 1993.
It should be noted ~hat this report has been reviewed as an update
and supplement to County Geologic Report (CGR) No. 629F, due to the
potential for cross-faulting on the subject site. CGR 629F was
previously prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire for an
office building and parking structure on this site.
Your report and addendum determined that:
1. No active faults are know~ to pass through the subject property.
2. Moderate to strong ground shaking, as a result of seismicity on
the nearby Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone can be expected at the site
during the anticipated life of the proposed structure. A peak
horizontal ground acceleration of 0.50g would result from a 100-
year probable 6.5 magnitude event on this fault zone
3. The water level variations measured in the borings on the site
are moat likely the result of local stratigraphy and active
pumping, rather than a fault-related barrier.
Main Office
4080 LEMON STREET. 9fn FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
("714) 275-3200
FAX (714) 27,5-3157
79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. SUITE E
BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA ~rZ201
(619) 863-8277
FAX (619) 863-7062
County Geologic Report No. 857
page 2
4. The exploratory ~Lrench backfill should be considered as
uncompacted fill.
Your report and addendum recommended that:
1. No building setbacks are required or recommended relative to the
potential for surface fault rupture.
2. Structures shall be constructed in compliance with the current
edition of the Uniform Building Code and founded as recommended in
the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by SEACOR,
dated June 4, 1993 (County Geologic Report No. 858) for ~his
project.
3. The exploratory trench backfill shall be removed and recompacted
in accordance with the recommendations made in the June 4, 1993
SEACOR preliminary geotechnical investigation for this project.
It is our opinion that your report and addendumwere prepared in a
competent manner and satisfies the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone Act and the request for additional fault information by the
City of Temecula. Final approval of your report is hereby given.
This report and addendum now supplement the conclusions and
recommendations made in County Geologic Report No. 629F, previously
prepared for this property.
The recommendations made in your report shall be adhered to in the
design and construction of this project.
Very truly yours,
SCE 20~' Kupfe neering Geologist
SK:al
co: Craig Ruiz - City of Temecula
Ida Sanchez - Markham & Associates
Yon M. Carpenter - ARGO Products Company
Earl Hart - California Division of Mines and Geology '
I.M. HARR.IS
FIRE CI-IIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACIINTO AVENUE ,, PERR.IS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183
March 29, 1994
TO:
ATTEN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CRAIG RUIZ
PA94-0019
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula
Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all co~=nercial buildings using the
procedures established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering
1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure, which must be available before any combustible material
is placed on the job site.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super
(6"x4"x2~21/2") fire hydrant, located not less than 25 feet or more
than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured alon~
vehicular travelways.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a
registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approvB1
signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the
local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on the job site.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the
permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type,
area separation or built-in fire protection measures.
PA93-0019
PAGE 2
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer
shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $558.00 to the
City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The
post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant,
and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that
the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included
on the title page of the building plans.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to
system. Plans shall be submitted to the
approval prior to installation.
install a fire alarm
Fire Department for
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If
building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material
Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets
shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior
to installation.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishering system. Contact a
certified fire protection company for proper placement. Plans must
be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the
Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be
provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a).
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of
2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper
placement.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and
driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be
mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire
hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall
prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan
designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and
or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12
inches in height, on the street side of the building with a
contrasting background.
PA-93-0019
PAGE 3
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
deposit, with the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Applicant/developer Shall be responsible to provide or show there
exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
in the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of'these conditions shall be
referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
Water
March 25, 1994
I tAR 2 9 19-
......
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SLrBJECT:
Water Availability
APN 921-270-047
Black Angus Restaurant
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, ff any, to RCWD.
ff you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
/./~ ~/'t---~~-~'-*'~
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB: SD: eb29/F 186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
J
Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
March 25, 1994
Page 2
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G.C.rosley ~
Senior Engineer
Customer Service Department
DGC/cz
AB 94-305
(w~-ntwk-PA940019
Eastern Municipal ater District
Craig Ruiz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Mar&h 25,'
1994
SUBJECT: PA 94-0019 (Black Angus Restaurant Plot Plan)
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project
restaurant located at the northwest corner of the
Ynez and Rancho California Roads.
is a proposed
intersection of
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area.. However, it must be understood the available service
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of
the subject project, the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the service agreement between the District and the
developer of the subject project.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
8-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer located along Ynez Road,
fronting the subject project.
18-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer located along Ynez Road,
fronting the subject project.
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jadnm · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E OaJdand Avenue, Hemet, CA
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 20
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND iNFORMATiON
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Black Angus R~tanrant
planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan
The northwesterly comer of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road
The construction of a 10,200 square foot restaurant on a 1.9 acre
parcd
May 6, 1994
Troy McCle!len
Form Guild
34094 Mazo Avenue
Dana Point, CA 92629
C/14) 240-8321
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section Ill]
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
R:%STAFFRFr~19PA94.1ES 5110/94 klb
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movemeat, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally'?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or torbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related bnTnrds such
as flooding?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
Maybe
m
m
m
R:%STAFFRPl~lgPAB4.1ES 5/10/94 klb 2
Ye~
Maybe
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal repleni.~hment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals?
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area?
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of snlmnls?
e. Deterioration W existing fish or wildlife habitat.
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people W severe noise levels?
c. Exposure of people W severe vibrations?
?. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area?
b. Alteration to the future p]anned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
R:~STAFFI!~T~19PAB4.1E8 6110/94 Idb 3
Ye~
Ma~e
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upse~ conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited ~o, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any b~-~rdous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oH, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)?
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?.
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air ffaffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
X
R:~STAFFR~'%lgPA94.1ES 5/10/94 klb 4
f. Other governmental servi~es~
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?.
16. Utilities, Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Comm~lnications systems?
c. Water systems?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage systems?
f. Solid waste disposal systems?
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivexy system improvements for any of the above?
17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of semitive recepWrs (such as hospitals and
schools) W toxic pollutant emi.~sions?
18. Aesthetics, Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
19. Recreation, Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
Y~
Maybe
m
m
m
X
X
X
x
R:%STAFFRPT%19PA94.1E8 6110/94 kJb ~
20.
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object'?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1.a.
No. Although the proposed project will result in minimal grading there will not be changes in the
base geologic substructures. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
1.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement,
compaction and over-coverin_g. A grading plan will be certified by the Engineering Department
which will mitigate any potential impacts.
1.C.
No. The proposed site is currently graded and further development of the proposed project will
not require substantial grading and as a result will not alter the existing topography. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.d.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
i.e.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain
high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant
but will be mitigated through minimal grading and use of watering trucks and the planting of
permanat landscaping in distin'bed areas aff. er grading.
No. The site has been graded and is vacant and unlandscaped. The proposed improvements will
include bardscape and permanent landscaping. The improvements will deerease the mount of
siltetion, deposition or erosion. Therefore, no significant impam are anticipated as a result of this
project.
1.g.
No. There will be no modification of water course or body of water. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.h.
Yes. The projea site is located within a liquefaction area. A Geoteehnical Report was prepared
for the adjacent parcel. The project is conditioned to comply with the recommendations set forth
in that report. The conditions placed upon this project will reduce this impact below a level of
significance.
1.i.
No. The project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Smdias Zone. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Air
2.a.
Yes. While this project will have a cumulative impact on the overall air quality of the South Coast
Air Basin, this impact is not considered significant. This impact is not considered significant since
the air emi-~sions from this project are not expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) threshold of significance.
R:%STAFFRP'I~19PA94.1E~ 5/10/94 Idb 7
2.b,c.
No. The proposed project will not result in the creation of objeetion~hle odors or an alteration of
air movement, temperatures, or moisture or any change in climate either locally or regionally.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
3.a.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the
project will have a significant effect on any body of water.
3.b.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the mount of impermeable surfaces on the site which will
reducetheamountofwaterabso~p~on. A hydrology study prepared for the project has datermined
that existing drainage facilities havc adequate capacity to handle the increased surface runoff.
Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
3.c.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in changes to the course or flow of flood
waters.
3.d.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in significant changes in the amount of
su~ace water in any water body.
3.e.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts is
anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality.
3.f,g.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of ground waters.
The proposed project will not interfere with the present ground water conditions. Therefore, there
will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. Due to the small size of the project, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant effect
on the public water supply or system.
3.i.
No. The project is not located in the 100-year flood plain or in a area that is subject to flooding.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated due to the fact that the project will not expose
people or property to water related hazards such as flood.
Plant Life
4.a.
No. The project site has been previously Faded. Currently, there are no native species of planm
on the site. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
4.b.
No. The project site has been previously Faded. Currently, there are no unique, rare, threatened
or endangered species of plants on the site. Therefore, there will be no siguificant impacts as a
result of this project.
R:~STAFFIIq'~19PA94.1ES 6110/94 klb 8
4.c.
No. While the projec~ will inwoduce new species of plants through the addition of landscaping,
the site has been previously graded and there ere no native species on this site. Therefore, there
will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
4.d.
No. This property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the Draft General Plan
as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result
of this project.
Animal Ufe
5.a,c,d,e. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of
years. The site is curren~y graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this
location. Therefore, there will be no significant impam to nnimnl life as a result of this projecL
5.b.
No. The site is currently graded and is in an asea that h~ been experiencing urbani~a~on for a
number of years. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat HabRat Fee Area.
Habitat Conservation fees have been paid as part of the underlying parcel map to mitigate the effect
of cumulative impacts. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Noise
6.a.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during cunstruc~on. Coustruaion related
impacts will be mitigated through the standard conditions of appwval for cunstruction activities
which will be imposed by the Public Worl~ Deparunent. Long-term noise impacts will occur due
w inereasad traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding
land uses are not noise sensitive.
6.b,c.
No. Severe noise and severe vibrations will not be generated by the proposed project. Therefore,
there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Light and Glare
Yes. The project site is located within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District.
The lighting sumdards within this distria require that only low pressure sodium stree~ and security
lights be installed and all other lighting must be oriented or shielded to reduce the glare in the night
sky near the observatory. The impact of the additional light and glare will be mitigated by
following the standards of the Mount Paiomar Observatory Special Lighting District (Ordinance No.
655) and through the appropriate design of the lighting system.
L~nd Use
8.a.
Yes. This site is currently vacant.. However, the General Plan Land Use Designation is
Highway/Tourist Connnercial. The surrounding land uses ere also designated Highway/Touriat
Commercial and Professional Office. The current zoning is General Commercial. The surrounding
developed parcels are commercial and office uses. The intensification of the proposed use is not
anticip_t_~ to be significant due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the City's
General Plan.
R:XSTAFFII~TX10PAD4.1ES 5110~94 kJb 9
8.b.
No. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan Designation of
Highway/Tourist Commercial and the current zoning designation of General Commercial.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. This project, due to its' small size and nature, will result in a marginal increase in the rate
of use of any natural resource and the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource. Therefore,
due w small increase in the use of natural resources, there will be no significant impacts as a result
of this project.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b. No. The proposed use does not use or swre haT-qrdolB substances. Therefore, there will be no
significant impacts as a result of this project.
lO.c.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with
emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and
Sheriff Depaxhuent. The project is design to have adequate access for emergency vehicles.
Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Ponulation
11.
No. The proposed project is expected to ereate approximately 45 jobs. The project will have a
cumulative impact on the regions population but is not considered to be significant due to the small
number of jobs created.
Housin~
12.
No. The proposed conunercial project will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a
demand for additional housing. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
No. This project will generate additional vehicular movement. However, a traffic study prepared
for this project determined that the increase in traffic volume is not considered to be significant.
The recent improvements construaed by Assessment Distria 88-12 on Ynez Road are sufficient
to handle the increased traffic.
13.b.
Yes. The project will create a need for additional parking spaces. The project has been designed
to meet the City's requirements for parking. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a
result of this project.
13.c.
No. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, the
traffic study prepared for this project has determined that this increase will not be significant. The
traffic that is generated by the pwject may add an incremental impact to the M5 Interchanges
which are currently operating at capacity during peak hours. This potential impact will be
R:%STAF~19PA94.1ES 5110/94 Idb l0
mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee. There will not be a sigul~cant impact
upon existing transportation systems due to the small size of the project.
13.d.
No. The project has been designed so that there will not be alterations to present paRems of
circulation or movement of people and/or goods. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts
as a result of this project.
13.e.
No. The project is not located near, nor will it use waterbone, rail or air traffic. Therefore, there
will be no signi~cnat impacts resulting form this project.
13.f.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians. However, the street improvements that have recently been constructed will reduce the
impact below a level of significance.
Public Services
14.a,b,e.
No. The project will require public services in the areas of polica, fire, maintenance of roads, and
public facilities. This impact is not considered significant due to the small size and nature of the
project.
14.c,d,L No. Due to the small size and nature of the proposed project, there will be no substantial effects
on these public services.
15.a,b.
No. Due to the small size of this project, the project will not result in the use of substantial
mounts of fuel or energy or substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of energy. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts
as a result of this project.
Utilities
16.a,b,c,d,
e,f,g. No. Adequate utilities exist for this project. The project has been conditioned to meet the
requirements of all utilities to insure that any impacts will be mitigated to below a level of
significance.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The construction of this project will not create any health hazards. This project is not located
near sensitive recepWrs. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a,b,c.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of
theproposedproject erearchitecturaly compa~ble with the surrounding buildings. Therefore, there
will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
R:XSTAFFI~f~19PA94.1ES 5/10/94 Idb
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses nor will the project create the need
for additional facilities. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. The City's General Han does not identify this area as an "Area of Sensitivity for
Archaeological Resources". The site is currently graded. Therefore, there will be no significant
impacts as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The project site is vacant and does not contain any known prehistoric buildings, strut'tares or
objects. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The project site is vacant and its' development is not expected to significantly impact any
known unique ethnic values. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this
project.
20.d.
No. The project site is vacant and is not known to have any existing religious or sacred uses.
Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
R:IS'rAFFRPT~lgP,~94.1ES 5/10/94 klb 12
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustnining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or shims]
species, or e|iminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe No
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Does the projea have impaas which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A projea's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the Wtal of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
Does the project have enviromental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS* IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any advene effe~,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as 'all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish end Game Code).
Yes
R:%STAFe-e,'I,,19PAO4,1ES 5/10/94 kJb
ENVIRONMENTAL DKrv. ILMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Condition of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
Signature
Craia Ruiz. Assistant Planner
Name and Title
May 9. 1994
Date
R:%STAFFl!~I'~19PA94.1es 5110/94 Idb 14
AI'I'ACHMENT NO, 4
EXHIBITS
R;%STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 21
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT: A
"C. DATE: June 6, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94,PC 513'1194 klb
BP
CITY OF TEMECULA
M
)S
H
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL
~ O R-3
~,,
R.3
R'4 -S
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION: C-P, GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN
P.C. DATE: June 6, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.PC 5/31/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT: D
""L DATE: June 6, 1994
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPTX19PA94.PC 5131/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
TRAFFIC STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT%lgPA94.pC 6/1/94 Idb 22
March 11, 1994
May 3, 1994 (Revision No.
TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS
1)
Mr. Troy McClellan
Project Architect
Form Guild
34102 Violet Lantern
Dana Point, CA 92629
Dear Mr. McClellan:
As requested, we have conducted a traffic study to examine the
adequacy of traffic circulation within the project site and
the potential impact of project traffic on the existing
shopping center driveways. Detailed study analyses are as
follows:
1. Pro~ect Location and Description
The proposed project will occupy approximately 1.932 acres
of land situated at the northwest corner of the intersec-
tion of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road in the City of
Temecula (see Figure 1). The project site is within the
existing Tower Plaza Shopping Center. The project will
consist of a 10,200 square-foot Black Angus Restaurant.
2. Pro~ect Traffic
Peak hour traffic generation forecasts for the proposed
project are summarized below:
AM Peak Traffic Hour
Inbound Outbound Total
PM Peak Traffic Hour
Inbound Outbound Total
Land Use
Generation Rate
Quality Restaurant 5.19 1.14 6.33 6.32 3.40 9.72
(Trips/TSF)
Traffic Generation
Quality Restaurant 53 12 65 65 35 100
(10.2 TSF)
TSF denotes 1,000 square feet of floor area
Source of Generation Rate: Trip Generation, 5th Edition,
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use code
831(Quality Restaurant)
3100 MARYW00D DR. ORANGE, CA 92667 (714] 974-7863 FAX (714] 974-1043
Page 2
3. Proiect Trip Distribution and Assiqnments
The directional distribution of the project-generated trips
was estimated based on the existing traffic patterns and
the surrounding land uses. Because of the service-oriented
characteristic of this project, it can be reasonably
estimated that 70% of the new trips generated by the
project will be originated from south of the project site
and the remaining 30% will be from the north. Based on
these trip distribution percentages, project traffic was
assigned as turning movements at the two Tower Plaza's
southerly driveways (see Figure 2).
4. Site Access
Direct access to the proposed project will be made at the
two existing Tower Plaza's southerly driveways on Ynez
Road. To determine the impact of future traffic generated
by the proposed project on the operation of these
driveways, existing driveway traffic turning movement
volume counts were collected. A total of 133 egressing
right-turn vehicles were observed at the southerly-most
driveway during the P.M. peak traffic hour. These vehicles
were observed to turn freely without any waiting delay.
The total combined existing plus project traffic right-
turning out of this driveway will be 133 + 25 = 158
vehicles per hour, or approximately 3 vehicles per minute.
The available safe gap for traffic right-turning out of the
driveway averages 8 vehicles per minute during the P.M.
peak traffic hour. This exceptionally long safe gap occurs
whenever the northbound left-turn signal phase is activated
at the signalized Tower Plaza Shopping Center middle
driveway. The driveway aisle between Ynez Road and the
first parking circulation aisle that leads to the project
site can store up to 6 vehicles. Therefore, no overflowing
of queueing traffic will be anticipated to block this
parking circulation aisle with the addition of project
traffic.
The middle driveway is presently signalized. This driveway
can accommodate a total of 8 eastbound vehicles per lane.
The left-turn pocket on Ynez Road can store up to 10
northbound left-turn vehicles. To assess the adequacy of
this driveway and the northbound left-turn pocket to handle
the additional project traffic, the following field
observations were taken on 5-2-94 between 4:30 P.M. and
5:30 P.M.:
The longest observed traffic queue waiting to exit out
of this driveway consists of 4 left-turning vehicles
and 2 right-turning vehicles.
Page 3
b e
No stacking problem was observed for the left-turn
pocket on Ynez Road except for the short duration
between 4:45 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. During this period,
heavy northbound traffic left-turning into the Tower
Plaza was observed to overflow out of the left-turn
pocket.
As evidenced from the field observations, no stacking
problem was observed for either the eastbound left-turn or
right-turn driveway exiting traffic. The addition of 10
project trips in an hour will not cause traffic stacking on
this driveway. The existing stacking problem for
northbound traffic left-turning into the Tower Plaza can
easily be mitigated through the lengthening of left-turning
signal timing. This left-turn stacking situation occurs
only during the short duration between 4:45 P.M. and 5:00
P.M. However, the estimated 46 incoming restaurant trips
will not begin until after 6:00 P.M.
Exhibits "A" and "B" show the detailed level of service
calculations for existing plus project traffic during the
P.M. peak traffic hour for the two study Tower Plaza
Shopping Center driveways. Results of these level of
service calculations are outlined below for comparison:
Tower
Plaza Driveway
Critical Traffic Turning Movement
Level of Service
Eastbound Eastbound
Right-Turn Left-Turn
Out of Plaza Out of Plaza
Southerly A
Driveway
Northbound
left-Turn
Into Plaza
Middle C C C
Driveway
Page 5
It has been a pleasure to serve you on this project. We
trust that this traffic analysis will be of immediate
assistance to you and the City of Temecula. If you have
any questions concerning our finidngs and conclusions or
need additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us at any time.
Respectfully submitted,
TP~AFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS
C. Hui Lai, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
FIGURES
TO~Ar'ER PLAZA
EXISTING ARCO AM/PM
EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAM
)SED BLACK ANGUS RESTAURANT
EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT
FIGURE ]
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
EXISTING ARCO AM/PM
EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAM
>OSED ~LA~CK ANGU~~ ~:
P.M.
EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT
FIGURE 2
PEAK HOUR pROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS
~as. ..i?~L~ ! ,~'TOWER PLAZA
! '.'~
. --
NORTH
-4-94
4:30 to 5:30 PM
~ J ~_~j,xI' PM
EXISTING ARCO AM/PM
EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAN
~OPOSED BLACK ANG~i }~
EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT
4:45 to 5:45 P~-~
3-10-94
FIGURE 3
EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ORDINANCE NO. 93-09
R:%STAFFRPT~19PAS4.PC 811194 Idb 23
ORDINANCE NO. 93--09
AN ORDINANCE OF 'FFrF, TEMECULA CITY
COUNCIL ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THR
USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS
TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIECULA DOES Im~.RRRy ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Eiv._diagl That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporatexi 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 siam hw that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
A. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan.
B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and t~king other actions, each of
the following:
1. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal be'rag considered at the current time.
- 2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ord'mances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community Plan,
(hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan
for the southwest potion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of
the City. At this lime, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelin~ while the City
is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
C. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan.
O~ts 93~)9
-1-
D. The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this tit/e, each
of the following:
1. There is reasonable probability that this Ordinance No. 93-09 will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied
within a rea,sonable time.
2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultrnately inconsistent with the
plan.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordthances.
Section 2. Pumose The purpose of this Ordinance is to set forth the development
standards for the inst~llation and maintenance of outdcor advertising displays within all land-use
zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of
outdoor advertising displays are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the
City.
It is a desire of the City that the design of this community be of the highest quality, that
new development be architecturally distinctive as well as homogeneous in design, and that
accessory facilities be compatible with the overall theme. The quality of signage plays a very
distinctive role in achieving the above. When abused, signs can create a visual blight which
detracts from the quality Of the environment and an individual's visual perception of the City.
RecogniTing that the primary purpose of signs is proper business identification, the
regu~tions of this Ordinance are enacted to:
A. Ensure that signs erected within the City are compatible with their surroundings and
are in keeping with the policies of the City;
B. Provide for the identification of businesses and should not be used for advertising
purposes;
C. Promote traffic safety and community identity while also enhancing the quality of the
visual environment of the City; and
D. Establish regulations which control outdoor advertising displays within the City.
Section 3. Definitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, tin'ms,
phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the
Orals 93-09 -1-
context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural.
A. "Commercial Off-Premise Sign" me,~ns any sign structure advertising an
establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment, which is not sold, produced,
manufactured, or funfished at the property on which the sign is located. A commercial off-
prernis= sign may be commonly known or referred to as an off-premis~s billboard.
B. "Non-Commercial Off-Premise Sign' means any sign structure exhibiting non-
commerchl speech or message in lieu of commercial sign copy; and any sign structure exhibiting
non-commercial signing unrelated to the buying or selling of commodities or anything involved
and practiced,
Section 4. Prohibited Si~-ns The establishment of the following outdoor advertising
displays are hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other
application discretionary entitlement for a outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted
upon, or approve&
Section 5. Exempt Outdoor Advertising Displays The provisions of this Ordinance shall
not apply to any application for:
A. Directional Signs, as defined in Chapmr 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
B. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5 of the non-
codifi_ed ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecula under
Ordinance No. 90-04).
C. Non-commercial off-premises advertising smactures and signs, subject to the
foliowing design and performance standards:
less;
Square footage of the sign board is limited to twelve (12) square feet or
2. There shall be no more than one (1) sign board per parcel;
3. Total height of a ground-mounted sign and supporting structure shall not
exceed six (6] feet;
4. No sign shall be illuminated.
Section 6. Non-conforming Outdoor Advcxfisin, g Displays All outdoor advertising
ds ~3-09
displays, in any zone, lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinanc~ for the
particular zone in which they are located, shall be accepted as non-conforming sign.
Section 7. To the ext~nt the provisions of this Ordinance conflict with any provisions
of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348 the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply.
Section 8. Effective Date This Ordinanc~ shall be in fall force and effect thirty
· (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 9. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are sereruble and it for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 10. Environmental Compliance, The City Council hereby finds that this project
does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b) (3).
Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted as requixed by laws.
PASSED, APPROVED .4ND ADOPTED this llth day of May, 1993.
ATTEST:
SuC .oreek,C,C CityG kerk' )
k
[SE~L]
0~ 93-09
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMO
JUNE 14, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94.CC 6/20/94 ktb 10
~ /
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
~,~/Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer
June 14, 1994
PA 94-0019- Plot Plan
Black Angus Restaurant @ Tower Plaza
All Applicants/Developers are required to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the
proposed project's generated traffic. Mitigation measures may be conditioned by the
Department of Public Works to be implemented at intersections and approach legs
experiencing an increase of 5% or more in peak hour traffic volumes based on existing traffic
volumes.
As determined by the Traffic Engineer, and reviewed by the Department of Public Works, the
above project's traffic impact is 1.43% at the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California
Road.'The signalized middle driveway, providing access to Tower Plaza is currently operating
at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS C) and would continue to do so with the addition of
the proposed project. The other southerly restricted access would continue to operate at a
LOS A.
The Traffic Engineer suggested that lengthening the northbound left turn signal timing for the
middle driveway would alleviate the vehicle stacking problems at both the southerly and
middle Tower Plaza driveways. Since this report was done, staff has extended the northbound
left turn signal timing for the left turn pocket along Ynez Road into Tower Plaza middle
driveway to 25 seconds. Consequently, that left turn pocket no longer experiences the
stacking it did before.
After consulting with the Traffic Engineer, it is staff's opinion that restricting the U turn
movement at that intersection would not significantly improve stacking on that left turn
pocket.
Two accidents have occurred at that intersection since the improvements to Ynez Road were
constructed and the signals were installed. Both accidents were due to driver's negligence;
failing to stop at a red light.
pwl 2\pourkaze~nem%O60794A
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES
JUNE 2, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\19PA94,CC 6/20/9~ ktb 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DRAFT
JUNE 6,1994
Dorese Rosner asked that language be added to Condition No. 22 specifying the
screening of equipment.
Ms. Rosner asked for clarification of Condition No. 52. Ray Casey explained this
condition applied to the project only. Ms. Rosner asked staff to amend the condition
to reflect it is project specific. Ms. Rosner asked staff to amend Condition No. 61
adding language that will allow for reimbursement in the future with CSD 88-12
regarding the purchase of right-of- ways. Ms. Rosner said the applicant feels the City
ordinance which prohibited the tenant signs, was originally developed to address
billboards and is not applicable to tenant signage within a shopping center.
Commissioner Salyer said he does not agree with the traffic study. He said he feels
the project will create a significant increase in the traffic on Ynez Road.
Commissioner Blair expressed a concern that there may not be adequate parking at the
proposed restaurant.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill said he feels the center has more than enough
capacity, the issue may be that someone has to walk a greater distance at peak dinner
period.
Engineer Casey said the traffic study suggests the timing for left turns into Tower Plaza
could be increased. He said the City Traffic Engineer could discuss this with the Traffic
Commission.
Commissioner Hoagland said he feels this is a good project and a keystone element for
this shopping center. He said the traffic report was prepared by a reputable firm.
Commissioner Hoagland said he does not disagree that perhaps reviewing the ability
to make a U-turn at the first signalized intersection north of Rancho California Road
might not be a bad idea.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Chairman Ford to close the
public hearing at 6:40 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA94-0019, Rot and Adopt Resolution No. 94- approving PA94-
0019, Plot Plan, based on the analysis and findings and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report, modifying the Resolution as
suggested by staff, adding Condition of Approval No. 69 and modifying Conditions of
Approval 22 and 52 as suggested by the applicant and agreed to by Staff.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
2 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Ford
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PCMIN06/06194 3 06/14194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PCMIN06106194
DRAFT Ju.E
Commissioner Blair said she feels it is a good idea to get a traffic generator into the
shopping center, however, she feels that placing the restaurant in the middle of the
shopping center may generate more traffic to the merchants. Commissioner Blair said
it is already difficult to get to the portion of the shopping where the restaurant is
proposed.
CommissionerSalyersaidheisconcernedwiththecurrenttrafficcongestion. Hesaid
many individuals have expressed to him their concern with the traffic problems in this
area.
Engineer Casey said the project has very little impact on the intersection.
Dennis Chiniaeff, representing Kernper, said if the U-turns are limited to left turns to
the northbound traffic on Ynez, between the banks, then the traffic is moved into the
middle of the shopping center.
Chairman Ford advised this item will go forward to the City Council on appeal.
PA93-0067, Minor Public Use Permit
Proposal to allow a church in an existing building. Located at 27512 Enterprise Circle
West.
Craig Ruiz presented the staff report.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
Father Ed Renner, St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 27512 Enterprise Circle West, said
many other churches are operating, that are not being required to provide parking as
the church is being required to provide.
Commissioner Hoagland suggested Conditions be added to the CUP stating that should
the parking conditions deteriorate, the permit could be subject to revocation should the
parking become inadequate and create a problem. Commissioner Hoagland asked if a
license agreement would be applicable.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz said the problem could be resolved by a real estate
attorney. He said a personal easement could be applicable to this particular issue. Mr.
Diaz said a license agreement would also be applicable as long as it is recorded.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the
public hearing at 7:05 P.M. and to send this item back to the Planning Director, and
direct him to approve this item with some of the ideas put forward by the Commission.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill said the item could be approved at this hearing with
direction that a condition be added acceptable to the Planning Director and City
4 06114194
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. PA94-0019,PLOT PLAN
Proposal to construct a 10,200 square foot restaurant on a vacant 1.9 acre parcel in
the General Commercial (C-P) zone. Located at the northwesterly corner of Rancho
California Road and Ynez Road.
Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Planner Ruiz advised that Page 9 of the
Resolution, line two, will be revised to read "to construct a 10,200 square foot Black
Angus Restaurant", deleting the reference to expanding an automobile dealership.
Planner Ruiz said staff received a letter on this date from the Health Department
requiring the applicant submit their plans to the Health Department. Staff has added
Condition No. 69 which reads, "The applicant shall comply with the recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Environmental Health Transmittal dated June 6, 1994,
a copy of which is attached.
Commissioner Hoagland expressed that he feels the proposed water feature at the
corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road is not appropriate for the area
considering the past year's rainfall and the higher temperatures during the summer
months.
Commissioner Salyer said he is concerned with the traffic patterns and traffic flow to
the project and this portion of the center.
Ray Casey explained there are specifically no access points off of Rancho California
Road or Ynez Road to this project. He said the problems in this area are a result of a
traffic back-up at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M.
Phillip Gilbert of Formbuild Architects, representing the American Restaurant Group, the
operators of the Black Angus Restaurant. Mr. Gilbert said he was present to accept
the conditions of approval for American Restaurant Group however he stated that the
applicant is a leaseholder and has no authority to act upon Condition No. 61.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz explained a leaseholder applying for a permit is the
same as the underlying fee holder of the property. The leaseholder will be required to
obtain the consent of the property owner.
Dorese Rosner, representing Kernper Real Estate Management, asked for clarification
of Condition No. 22.
Craig Ruiz explained the applicant is being required to provide additional landscaping
to adequately screen equipment.
PCMIN06/06/94 2 06114194
G. Thornnii2
Jeff Stone~ President 6/11/94
Board of direetors~ Temecula.
Dear Mr Stone and fellow Directors;
I noticed by the Califorian that the
building of a 31ack Angus on the corner
of Rancho and rnez is being considered
negatively.. Traffic doesnt seem to be
a good reason to turndown a chance to
have a beautiful estabishment such as
the Black Angus' in our town. Their peak
hours differs from our!normal high
traffic hours..Flease reconsider and do
put a Blank Angus on tha~ corner. I~s a
good cover for Arco..
r
H.E, &Mae V. Foster L 0 V E
40576 Calle r~ara ,- """"- ...... * -
T~lt, "~' "~
CA 9~591 :.¥ = ~,: - \ .... "' '
ro~-Tl6o '-; . .: - ...... . ..... _
"- /S3& -=: ..... '~ ....... "- ~ USA
3eff Stone.
City HatI
43174 Business park Dr.
Temeclu, Ca. 92590'
RE E. IVED
JUN I 3
June 9, 1994
City of Temecula
Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Stuart Anderson's Black Angus
Gentlemen:
I am once again stunned and amazed at the thought ~rocess
of our city planners. I learned from an article in The
Californian that the Planning Commission has turned down plans
for the proposed Stuart Anderson's Restaurant on Ynez and Rancho
California Road. The article stated that Arthur Salyer and
Billie Blair felt the restaurant would create traffic. I would
like to inquire as to what type of business could be on the site
in question which would not create traffic. If a business does
not create traffic, it will surely fail. Alot of money has been
spent on that particular corner, are you saying that the money
spent did not take into account future businesses that will be
occupying this corner?
Since word broke that a Stuart Anderson's may be coming to
town, people have been talking about it. I have yet to hear any
negative comments. It seems like it may even solve the problem
of the large group of adults. in our Valley, who would like to go
out and listen to music and dance. Shakespears and Tramps are
over-run with younger people and those of us a little older would
like a place to go too.
I would like to suggest you reconsider your decision for a
number of reasons. The most obvious being that if you are
looking for a business at this location that will not bring
traffic, we will never have anything there but an empty lot.
Yours truly,
Temecula Business Owner
40370 Via Francisco
Mumeta, CA 92562
June 8, 1994
RECEIVED
JUN 2 0 19N
Mr. James Foimer, Editor
The Californian
27450 Yne'/,.Road, Suite 300
Ternecula, CA 92591
Dear Mr. Folmer,
We are writing in response to the article in your pa~er, today's dine, 'Temuda Planning Commission
denies pruposed Black Angus'.
It was urdoelievable that Arthur Salyer and Bile Blair could be so short-sighted and uncardng toward the
Iocalloeo~etovote_-'~3~stthisenterptse. Thekcortcemfortrafficcorm'olal3Cearstobeun-inforrned.
smce ffiere are three (3) enrance/extts to this site, two (2) of which are conl~olled by traffic ights. This area
is not 'just a bedroom community', ~ere are peopte who reside here permaneqtly such as where we have
Iocmed a~ The Colony, mMun'iem. Weareftom rnanywalks of life and areas andhavelong enjoyed dining
m the Black Angus in years pam. It is a restaz.rant thm is affordable wibh good food and ser~ice to the
Seniorc~t~-eq as well as the younger genermion. Thelocallon is idealwhere itis l3ro~osed. Wefeelsure
thm anyone wishing to dine there would be willing to ddve to that loca~jon. lf the lane arrangement frm
Jefferson to Ynez on Winchestar is the result of Ibis 'Planning Commission', well enough said, they sure
demonstrated lack of judg~nent there by not 'planning' ahead!
We are glad an al~eal to the decision will be made and whole heartedly sul:Ix~rt that ap,oeal. Arthur and
Billie should wake up and small the seafood/steak/chk:ken.
Sincerely,
Mildred M. McGlashan
cc:City Commission
ITEM 20
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPRO~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning.
June 28,1994
Master Conditional Use Permit
Prepared By:
David W. Hogan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
It is requested that the City Council:
Read by Title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE
PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF
MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS"
BACKGROUND
The City Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on November 5, 1993 to
investigate the feasibility of developing a major destination entertainment facility in and around
the Old Town area. During the preliminary development of this project, Staff identified the
need for a mechanism to permit the development of the facility while ensuring the protection
of the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The Master Conditional Use Permit would create a simplified two-step permitting process that
allows the City Council to approve the Master Conditional Use Permit (with a Planning
Commission recommendation) and allows the Director of Planning to approve the specific
building(s) and facilities. The provisions of the proposed Ordinance are intended to:
· Apply only to public-private development projects for which the City is a partner in;
Provide for the specific approval of project facilities or uses in specified general
locations;
Incorporate all specified mitigation measures identified during the environmental review
process;
Satisfy the requirements for specific conditional use permit in the City zoning
ordinance; and
R:\STAFFRPT~MCUP-ORD.CC 6/20/94 Idb
Facilitate the timely development of certain complex City-private sector development
projects.
The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance was considered by the Planning
Commission on June 6, 1994. The Commission made one minor change to the ordinance.
The change would allow the use of a master conditional use permit only its use is specifically
authorized in an approved memorandum of agreement or development agreement.
The Commission then adopted Resolution PC 94-018 which recommended that the Council
adopt the proposed Ordinance. Adoption of the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit
Ordinance will facilitate the approval process for the Old Town Redevelopment (Buffman)
Project by providing an innovative land use approval tool.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the
environment. Therefore, the Director of Planning has determined that the project is exempt
from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Staff has reviewed the proposed Ordinance and has determined that the Ordinance is
consistent with the following policies contained in the City's adopted General Plan:
· Land Use Element Policies: 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9
· Community Design Element Policy: 2.4
As a result, the proposed Ordinance has been determined to be consistent with the adopted
City General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
No Fiscal Impact is anticipated from the adoption of the proposed Ordinance.
Attachments:
1. CC Ordinance No. 94- - Page 3
2. PC Resolution No. 94-018- Page 9
R:\STAFFRPT~MCUP-ORD.CC 6120194 klb 2
A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO. 94-,__
R:\STAFFRP'~MCUP~3RD.CC 6/20/94 ldb 3
A'I-rACIilVIF_,I~FF NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
~ ORDIN'ANCE OF TIIF, CrFY COU'NCH- FOR T,HE CITY
OF TEIV~_,CIJ1,A _,MViF, NDING ORDINANCE 348 TO
CREATE PROVISIONS AND RF, Q~S FOR TILE,
APPROVAL OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following findings:
A. That according to State Planning and Zoning Law, a City may adopt locally
appropriate zoning and development regulations;
B. That the City Council adopted the zoning regulations for the County of Riverside
by reference shortly after incorporation;
C. That the Council has determined there is a need to amend the current zoning
regulations to create an appropriate mechanism for permitting the timely and efficient
development of joint public-private projects;
D. That an appropriate mechanism for permitting joint public-private projects is the
Master Conditional Use Permit; and,
E. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinances.
Section 2. Ordinance Section 18.48 is hereby added to Article XVHI of Ordinance
No. 348 to read as follows:
"Section 18.48. MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
a. Purpose and Intent. The City Council has enacted this section to facilitate the
timely and efficient development of large scale joint public-private projects. This section may
be applied to any large scale development project for which the City of Temecula, Temecuh
Redevelopmerit Agency, Temecula Community Services District, or Temecula Industrial
Development Authority has entered into a memorandum of understanding or development
agreement to jointly investigate, consider, develop or construct a project, and the memorandum
or agreement specifically authorizes the use of the master conditional use permit process. This
section is intended to provide for the specific approval of project facilities or uses in general
locations. A Master Conditional Use Permit satisfies the requirements for specific conditional
use permit(s) identified in the City zoning ordinance.
b. Application Requirements. Applications for a Master Conditional Use Permit
shall be submitted to the Planning Department on City application forms together with all fees,
plans and any other information required by Section 18.26 of Ordinance 348 and the Director
of Planning.
c. Hearing and Notice. Upon determination that an application for a Master
Conditional Use Permit is complete, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be
noticed and scheduled in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 18.26. The Director
and Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council
shall be the final hearing body for Master Conditional Use Permits.
d. Findings. To approve or conditionally approve a Master Conditional Use Permit,
the City Council must make the following findings:
1. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General
Plan, the development code, and applicable specific plans.
2. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with a signed
memorandum of understanding or development agreement between the City and a private party.
3. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit will result in a tangible and
substantial public benefit.
4. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the nature,
condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and that the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures.
5. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping,
and other development features prescribed in the zoning ordinance.
6. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general weftare of the community.
7. The subsequent site specific development permits will be submitted and
approved to incorporate all appropriate environmental impact mitigation measures and related
on- and off-site improvements.
e. Conditions of Approval. A Master Conditional Use Permit Shall not be granted
unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use(s) will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general weftare of the community. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety or general weftare of the community.
f. Subsequent Development Permits.
1. No specific use or activity authorized by a Master Conditional Use Permit
may be initiated, and no authorized structure may be erected or used, unless a site specific
development permit or plot plan has been approved by the Director of Planning.
2. The application for the subsequent approval(s) shall include the appropriate
fee and shall be made in a manner and on the forms specified by the Director of Planning.
3. The Director of Planning shall ensure that all appropriate environmental
impact mitigation measures and related on- and off-site improvements are made conditions of,
or prerequisites to, the approval of the subsequent development permit.
4. The Director of Planning shall make a fmding that any proposed
subsequent development permits are consistent with the conditions identified in the approved
Master Conditional Use Permit.
5. After a duly noticed public hearing, the Director of Planning may approve,
approve with conditions, or deny any application for a subsequent site specific development
permit. The Director may deny any application that is inconsistent with the approved Master
Conditional Use Permit or the mitigation measures in the certified environmental document, or
if the proposed subsequent development permit does not meet the performance standards
contained in the zoning ordinance, or an applicable approved specific plan.
g. Transferability of Master Conditional Use Permit. No Master Conditional Use
Permit may be transferred or assigned without the specific written approval of the City Council.
h. Use of Master Conditional Use Permit.
1. Unless otherwise provided in the conditions of approval, a Master
Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void three (3) years after approval unless the permittee
has commenced the conditionally approved use(s). Commencement of the use(s) shall mean the
beginning of substantial construction of the authorized use(s), which construction must thereafter
be pursued diligently to completion, or in the case of an existing building, the actual occupancy
of the building or land under the terms of the approved permit.
2. Prior to the expiration of the Master Conditional Use Permit, the permittee
may request an extension of time in which to use the permit. For good cause, two (2) twelve
(12) month time extensions may be granmd by the City Council. The City Council may add
additional conditions or requirements to the conditions of approval when approving a time
extension. The request for an extension of time shall be made on the forms and in the manner
prescribed by the Director of Planning.
i. Revocation of a Master Conditional Use Permit. Any Master Conditional Use
Permit may be revoked upon the f'mdings and procedures contained in Section 18.31."
R:\STAFFRPT\MCUP-OED.CC 6/20/94 klb 6
Section 3. Environmental Compliance The City Council determines that this
amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act because adoption of this ordinance will have no impact on the
environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). Each application for a Master
Conditional Use Permit will undergo the appropriate environmental analysis and review when
specific applications are made.
Section 4. Sevembility The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are sereruble and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City
Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1994.
RON ROBHITS
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI .II~ORNIA
COUNTY OF R/VERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMEULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 94- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1994, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEIvlBRS
COUNCILM~'MBERS
COUNCILIVlEMBERS
.FU'NE S.
CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-018
ATFACH]VfF_aNT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-018
"A RESOLUTION OF TWF~ PLANNING CO1VIMIqSION FOR
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMFArDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ~ ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR TIlE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE
PROVEIONS AND REQUIRES~,NTS FOR THE APPROVAL
OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS""
WIIEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the non-
codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348; and,
WIW. REAS, such regulations do not contain adequate provisions concerning the
development of some public-private joint venture projects; and,
WHEREAS, this proposed ordinance would provide another mechanism to facilitate the
timely development of joint public-private projects; and,
WI~REAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinances; and,
WIIEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce; and,
WItF. REAS, a public hearing were conducted on June 6, 1994, at which time interested
persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, TWEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby fmds that the
proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance will provide for the timely and efficient
implementation of joint venture projects for which the City is an active partner.
Section 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further fmds that the
proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan.
Section 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula funher finds that the
proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a
significant impacts on the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).
R:~STAFFRFBMCXFP-ORD.CC 6/20194 lab 10
Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends
to the City Council that the Council adopts the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit
Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHARMAN
I ItF. REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI4IIJ,
SECRETARY
R:L~TAFFRPT\MCUP-ORD.CC 6/20/94 lab 11
ITEM 2 1
APPRO~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planningl;~/
June 28, 1994
Planning Application No. 94-0035 - Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
of a Thirty (30) Foot High Freeway Oriented Sign for the Ynez Car Care Center.
Prepared By:
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission Recommends the City Council:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 - APPEAL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONS DECISION TO APPROVE A THIRTY (30) FOOT HIGH, ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FEET IN AREA FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGN
LOCATED AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921-720-008.
BACKGROUND
The project as originally submitted was for two signs - a fifteen foot high monument sign
along Ynez Road and a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign. Staff's recommendation
in the May 2, 1994, Agenda Report was to deny both signs. The report recommended that
both signs be lower in height (the monument sign along Ynez at 12 feet in height and the
freeway oriented sign at approximately 25-30 feet in height). Staff's basis for this
recommendation was that no other monument signs along Ynez Road had been approved by
the City in excess of eight feet in height. In addition, Staff had concerns about the freeway
oriented sign - the proliferation of this type of signage along Interstate 15, the aesthetic impact
of trimming trees along the freeway, and the difference in scale between the building and the
sign.
However, prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with Staff and
submitted a design for the monument sign at twelve feet in height. Staff felt that this height
was reasonable because the sign was a multi-tenant sign and the City had previously approved
signs at this height. Staff modified their recommendation of the monument sign to approval.
Staff still requested direction from the Commission regarding the height of the freeway
oriented sign.
R:\STAFFRFf~SPA94.CC 6/20/94 klb
The Planning Commission supported Staff's modified recommendation for the twelve foot high
monument sign along Ynez Road. In addition, they upheld the recommendation in the Agenda
Report for a freeway oriented sign that was lower than forty feet in height. They directed
Staff to bring revised Resolutions (the one's in the Agenda Report recommended denial) back
to them with Staff's recommendation at their next meeting.
After the May 2, 1994 Commission meeting, Staff directed the applicant to contact
CALTRANS to determine the extent of "pruning" that could be done to enhance visibility of
the sign at the lower heights. The applicant informed Staff that CALTRANS does not allow
people to top the trees; however, they may be laced and trimmed with the approval of plans
that meet their criteria. In addition, CALTRANS requires that the sign be erected prior to the
submittal of these plans. It was Staff's position that this would pose a hardship on the
applicant. Staff brought back a resolution to the Planning Commission for a forty (40) foot
high freeway oriented sign. The Commission approved the sign at the height recommended
in the May 2, 1994 Agenda report (25-30 feet high).
The applicant appealed the decision, requesting that the Council direct staff to approve the
originally requested height of 40 feet for the proposed sign. The reasoning for the appeal is
that Section 19.4 of Ordinance No. 348 allows up to a forty-five (45) foot high sign within
660' feet of the freeway right-of-way. A flag test was conducted per City policy and the test
concluded that the sign was clearly visible at a height of forty (40) feet at a distance of 3/10
of a mile from the sign location (this distance is chosen to allow motorists to transition from
the fast lane to the exit lane safely once they see the sign),
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 94- - Page 3
Planning Commission Staff Report: May 2, 1994- Page 7
Draft Planning Commission Minutes: May 2, 1994 - Page 8
R:~STAFFRPT~35PA94.CC 6/20/94 kib 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFP, PT~SPA94,CC 6/20/94 kJb 3
Ai-IACHNIE~T NO. ]
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T1TE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
APPEAL UPHOLDING THY. PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO
APPROVE A TITIRTY (30) FOOT HIGH, ONE I]'LrNDI~Rr~ FIFTY (150)
SQUARE FEET IN AREA FIH~.EWAY OIHY~NTED SIGN LOCATED AT
THE REAR FORTION OF ~ YNEZ CAR CARE CENTER AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 921-720-008.
WHEREAS, Larry Gabele Fried Planning Application No. 94-0035 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 94-0035 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WITEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 94-0035 on
May 2, 1994;
WHEREAS, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No.
94-0035;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved
Planning Application No. 94-0035 for a thirty (30) foot high freeway oriented sign;
WHEREAS, larry Gabele fried an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
regarding Planning Application No. 94-0035 in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. 94-0035;
W/IRREAS, the City Council considered Planning Application No. 94-0035 on June 28,
1994;
NOW, THY~REFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecuh City Council hereby makes the following
f'mdings:
R:\STAFFRPTX35pA94.CC 6;20/9~, lab 4
1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The sign provides
design excellence in signage, and it serves to preserve and enhance the positive qualities of
individual districts. Further, it contributes to a streetscape system that provides cohesiveness
and enhances community image.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfaxe. The height selected for the sign is the minimum
necessary for effective identification of the site.
3. The project conforms to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The
forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is the minimum necessary for effective identification
of the site.
A. As condifioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 94-0035 as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. This project is a Categorical Exemption per
Article 19, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This
Exemption states: "Class 11 consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory
to existing commercial facilities, including but not limited to on-premise signs."
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
R:~STAFFRI~T~3$PA94.CC 6/20/94 Iflb 5
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
, 199 .
RON ROBBRTS
MAYOR
ATI'~ST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAn]
STATE OF CAI-WORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
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 __ day of
, 199__ by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COLTNCII,]ERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
C 0UNCILIVlEMBERS:
JUNE S. G]~.~
CITY CI ,I~-RK
R:\STAFFRPT~35PA94.CC 6/20/94 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MAY 2, 1994
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Planning Application No. 94-0035
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- denying Planning
Application No. 94-0035 for a monument sign on Ynez
Road and a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
J. Larry Gabele
REPRESENTATIVE:
America West Signs & Neon
PROPOSAL:
A one hundred fifty (150)square foot, forty (40) foot high
freeway oriented sign and a eighty-six (86) square foot,
fifteen (15) foot high monument sign on Ynez Road
LOCATION:
26672 Ynez Road (Ynez Car Care Center)
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
Interstate 15
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SC (Service Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Multi-Tenant Automotive Car Care Center
SURROUNDING LAND USES:'
North:
South:
East:
West:
Toyota of Temecula
Norm Reeves Chrysler/Plymouth
Retail Commercial
Interstate 15
R:%STAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 4/2il/94 edl
PROJECT STATISTICS
Freeway Oriented Sion
Height: Forty (40) feet
Area of Sign: One hundred fifty (150) square feet
Number of Tenants on Sign: Six (6)
Monument Sian
Height: Fifteen (15) feet
Area of Sign: Eighty-six (86) square feet
Number of Tenants on Sign: Fourteen (14)
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA94-0035 was submitted to the Planning Department on April 20,
1994. A flag test was conducted on April 20, 1994. Planning Application No. 94-0035 was
deemed complete on April 25, 1994.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Ynez Car Care Center currently consists of two multi-tenant buildings on three parcels.
One parcel remains vacant at this time. The applicant proposes two free-standing signs, each
one on a separate parcel. One is a one hundred fifty (150) square foot, forty (40) foot high
freeway oriented sign and the second is an eighty-four (84) square foot, fifteen (15) foot high
monument sign on Ynez Road for the Ynez Car Care Center. The freeway oriented sign
identifies the center as well as six of the tenants. The applicant has submitted two (2)
different designs for the monument sign along Ynez Road. Both signs are approximately
fifteen feet in height. They identify the center, and have space for identification of fourteen
tenants.
ANALYSIS
Provisions Contained in Ordinance No. 348
Section 19.1 of Ordinance No. 348 states: "It is the intent of this ordinance to provide
standards to safeguard life, health and property and the public welfare, to provide the means
for adequate identification of businesses and other sign uses by prohibiting, regulating and
controlling the design, location, and maintenance of signs." It is with this authority that the
Planning Department reviews sign submittals,
Section 19.4 also contains criteria for free-standing signs located within 660 feet of the
nearest edge of a freeway right-of way line and free-standing signs for "all other locations."
The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 45 feet in height and the maximum surface
area shall not exceed 150 square feet if it is within the 660 feet of the nearest edge of a
freeway right-of way line. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 20 feet in height
and a maximum surface area of 50 square feet for those signs located in all other areas. The
proposed freeway-oriented sign is within 660 feet of Interstate 15.
R:~STAFFRPT~35PAg4.PC 4/28194 =all 2
Precedent Established Alone Ynez Road
Although Ordinance No. 348 provides for signs up to a maximum of twenty (20), Staff has
been attempting to keep the height of monument signs around six (6) feet in height. This has
come through the direction and support of the Planning Commission and City Council. Signs
that have been approved by the City of Temecula along the portion of Ynez Road where the
proposed sign is to be located have been limited to approximately six (6) feet in height. Since
the City's incorporation, three auto dealership signs have been approved (Nissan, Toyota and
Chevrolet). In all three cases, the signs are approximately six feet in height. Most recently,
Norm Reeves Auto Group applied for a twenty (20) foot high sign. This item was taken before
the Planning Commission; whereby, the Commission denied the application based upon the
height of the sign and the precedent that had been created in the area. After the Planning
Commission meeting, the applicant met with the Planning Director and Staff. A site visit was
conducted and based upon the analysis of all of the facts, a slight increase in height was
granted. This variation from the six foot high sign was allowed because visibility at that site
was blocked by the tall power line poles. Staff hds made the applicant aware of the six (6)
foot high policy on a number of occasions. To allow each existing business along with future
businesses, to erect fifteen (15) foot high signs along Ynez Road would result in visual blight,
unless there in Staff's opinion are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the
project. In this case, it is Staff's opinion that there are no circumstances to warrant an
increase in the height of the sign to fifteen feet.
Monument Sian on Ynez Road
The monument sign that is proposed along Ynez Road is approximately fifteen (15) feet in
height and eight-four (84) square feet in area, with space for fourteen tenants to be listed on
the sign. The maximum area permitted under Ordinance No. 349 is fifty (50) square feet. In
addition, as discussed above, precedent has already been established along this section of
Ynez Road. The sign as proposed exceeds the height of other signs within the area. Although
the sign is for a multi-tenant center, the precedent has also already been established for the
number of tenants within a center that identify themselves on the free-standing center sign.
Some of these examples exist at Palm Plaza, Tower Plaza and Palomar Village. The maximum
number of tenants listed on these signs is approximately four (4). The applicant proposes to
list fourteen (14) tenants on the sign.
Freeway Oriented Sian
The maximum height allowed for a freestanding sign located within 660 feet of the nearest
edge of a freeway right-of-way shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet and the maximum surface
area of a sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. The proposed sign is
approximately one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area. A flag test is conducted in order
to ascertain the appropriate height of any freeway oriented signs. The position of the Planning
Department is to recommend heights to the Planning Commission that will provide the
maximum amount of identification at the lowest possible height. A flag test was conducted
for this sign on April 20, 1994. Staff observed the flag both northbound and southbound
along Interstate 15. The distance of 3/10 of a mile from the site was utilized as a standard
in order to allow people to transition from the fast lane to the lane closest to the exit ramp.
At this distance, the sign was clearly visible at forty (40) feet and forty-five (45) feet in height.
Trees obscured the sign at heights lower than this at this distance. Staff recommended to the
applicant's representative that they consider contacting CALTRANS in order to trim the trees
R:~STAFFRP*r~35PAS4.pC 4/28194 edl 3
FINDINGS
The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Neither free-standing sign
provides design excellence in signage, nor do they preserve and enhance the positive
clualities of individual districts. Further, they do not contribute to a streetscape system
that provides cohesivehess and enhances community image.
The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare. To allow each existing business, along with future
businesses, to erect fifteen {15) foot high signs along Ynez Road and forty (40) foot
high free-standing signs adjacent to Interstate 15 would result in visual blight. To
approve projects that would result in visual blight would be contrary to the general
welfare of the community.
The project does not conform to the logical development of the land and is not
compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. Based upon direction from the City Council and Planning Commission, Staff
has not approved any signs in this area along Ynez Road in excess of six feet with the
singular exception being Norm Reeves which was permitted at eight (8) feet due to site
visibility constraints. To approve a fifteen (15) foot free standing sign at this location
would not conform to the logical development of the land and would be inconsistent
with present and future logical development in the area. The forty (40) foot high
freeway oriented sign is not compatible with the scale of the buildings that are located
on the site. The maximum height of these buildings is approximately twenty-three (23)
feet, with tower elements approximately twenty-eight (28) feet.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 94-
Exhibits - Blue Page 9
- Blue Page 6
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Elevations
El. Freeway Oriente~l Sign
E2. Monument Sign(s)
R:~STAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 41211194 dl 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94.-
R:',STAFFRPT%35PA84.PC 4128/94 edl 6
ATTA~ NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A I~F-~OLUTION OF T~F. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO, 94-003~ - A REQUEST FOR A FORTY
(40) FOOT HIGH, ONE HUNDI~k'n ~'w-l'Y (150) SQUARE
F~.F.T IN AREA FIt~.k'zWAY OBH~ITED SIGN AND A
~ (15) FOOT HIGH, EIGHTY-FOUR (84) SQUARE
FEET IN AREA MONUME~NT SIGN ALONG YNt. z ROAD
LOCATED AT 26672 YNF_,Z ROAD (Yl%1Z CAR CARE
CENTER) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUlVIBERS 921-720-008 921-720-010.
WREREAS, Larry Gabele fried p|anning Application No. 94.0035 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
wkich the City has adopted by reference;
WI~REAS, Planning Application No. 94-0035 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
Vv'w~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. 94-0035 on
May 2, 1994;
WnT. REAS, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No.
94-0035;
NOW, TI~F.R~FORE, Tn~. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~r~. CITY OF
Ti~IECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FO/_LOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations axe true and correct.
Section 2. ~
A. The Planning Commission in denying Planning Application No. 94-0035, makes
the following fredlugs, to wit:
1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Neither free-
standing sign provides design excellence in signage, nor do they preserve and enhance the
positive qualifies of individual districts. Further, they do not contribute to a streetscape system
that provides cohesivehess and enhances community image.
2. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of
the public health, safety and genera] weftaxe. To allow each existing business, along wiffi future
businesses, to erect fifteen (15) foot high signs along Ynez Road and forty (40) foot high free-
R:\STAF:F:RPT%3SPA94,pC .4/28194 edl 7
standing signs adjacent to Interstate 15 would result in visual blight. To approve projects that
would result in visual blight would be contrary to the general welfare of the community.
3. The project does not conform to the logical development of the land and
is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
Based upon direction from the City Counc~ and Phnning Commission, Staff has not approved
any signs in this area along Ynez Road in excess of six feet with the singular exception being
Norm Reeves which was permitted at eight (8) foet due to site visibility constraints. To approve
a fifteen (15) foot free standing sign at this location would not conform to the logical
development of the land and would be inconsistent with pre,~nt and future logical development
in the area. The forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is not compatible with the scale of
the buildings that are located on the sit~. The maximum height of these buildings is
approximately twenty-three (23) feel, with tower elements approximately twenty-eight (28) feet.
Section 3. Environmental Complian6e. This project is a Statutory exemption per Article
18, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption
states: "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves."
Section 4. PASSED, AImlOVED AND ADOPTED this 2rid day of May, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ltV. REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COM1VIISSION,~tS:
PLANNING CO1VI1VIISSIONFiS:
GARY THORNln~J.
SECR~'LA.RY
R:\STAFFRP"D,3SPA94,PC 4/2~/94 8dl 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:%STAFFRrl"%35PA94,PC 4128/94 edl 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
"'HIBIT: A
.;. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
BP
~P
F
i I
P
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
,/
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
EXHIBIT C
ZONING DESIGNATION:
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
P.C. DATE: 'MAY 2, 1994
SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
R:~FAGANM\REPORT$~351~A94.PC 4/22/94 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
MONUMENT SIGN
TOYOTA DEALERSHIP
n'I;'L~iLJ-I-EI-IIIIIIIIInlIIIIII ~,;,~2_.~lJll~ .
; :--.' .~. · ,_ ~.' : :~.--, ,~..~~~'/
"' , ,-t,. '._'~!' '~ ' T :.
~,.~
' iF.,Epi!.-AGLE DEAbE~.SIIIP
FREEWAY ORIENTED
SIGN
CASE N~3.: pLANNING AppLICATION NO. 94...0035
EXHIBIT: D
, ' . DATE: MAY 2, 1994.
SITE PLAN
R:,,FAGANM\~EpORTS%31pA~4..pC 41221g4 mt
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
EXHIBIT: E2
;. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
MONUMENT SIGN(S)
R:~,$TAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 412~r/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
EXHIBIT: E2
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
MONUMENT SIGN(S)
R:\STAFFRPT'~35PA94,pC 4/28/94
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 2, 1994
R:\STAFFRF~35!mA94.CC 6/20/94 klb 8
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING b, lf~
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION .~d~/i~,
MONDAY, MAY 2, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was held on Monday May
2, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo
Shelton-Dutcher and Recording Secretary Gall Ziglet.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADoroyal of Aaenda
tt was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve
the agenda as mailed.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
Director's Hearino Update
Report included as part of the agenda.
Blair, Fahey, Hoagiand, Ford
None -.
Salyer
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
PCMIN0510211994
Planning Aoolication No. PA94-0035
Proposal by Ynez Car Care Center for a 40' high freeway sign and a 15' high
monument sign on Ynez Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 02, 1994
staff report. He advised the Commission the applicant has re-submitted their
application for the 15' sign which is reduced to 12', a height staff feels is
appropriate for the location.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill said the applicant wanted to address the
Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair not to
permit the applicant to speak on this item.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer
The applicant, Larry Gabele, provided the Commission with photographs of the
proprosed sign location. He advised the Commission the only access to the
property is shared jointly with Toyota of Temecula.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to direct
staff to re-write the resolution and the findings to the recommendation and bring
this item back before the Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Salyer
Planning Commission Location Chanae
Inform Commission of change in location of meetings to the Rancho California
Water District Board Room beginning June 1, 1994
Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
approve staff recommendation.
PCMIN05/021 t 9~4 2 05/I 1194
ITEM 22
APPROVAL R~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJECT:
Approval of Election Resolutions
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO
CONDUCT THE GENERAL MUNCIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 8, 1994.
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING
AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THE ELECTION OF
CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES.
BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation in December, 1989, the City Council of the City of
Temecula determined to hold elections for the City Council in even numbered years to be held
concurrently with the Statewide General Election. It was the desire of the Council to hold
these elections at this time so that election costs could be minimized through consolidation
with the election being conducted by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.
Pursuant to Elections Code Sections 22003 and 23302, a municipality may request this
consolidation with the General Election and may request that the Registrar of Voters conduct
the municipal election, canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the
election be held in all respects if if there were only one election. This request must be made
in the form of a resolution which delegates certain powers and duties of the Election Officer
for the City of Temecula to the County Elections Department. This delegation does not include
services routinely conducted by the City Clerk such as advertising requirements for filing
periods and all campaign filings including nomination papers and campaign statements.
The second resolution that the Council is being asked to adopt is the formal resolution
calling and giving notice of the election. This is a requirement of the laws of the State of
California relating to General Law Cities. It also authorizes the City Clerk to give all notices
of the election in the time, form and manner required by the election code.
JSG
RF_,SOLUTION NO. ~.__
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA, REQUESTING ~ SERVICES OF THE
COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ET.~CTION TO BE HELr} ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula, California, called a General
Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, for the purpose of the election
of three (3) members of the City Council and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the
Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts,
polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election
department of the County of Riverside canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and
that the election be held in all respects as if there were oniy one election;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That pursuant to Sections 22003 and 23302 of the Elections Code of the
State of California, the Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside is hereby requested to
conduct the General Municipal Election in consolidation with the statewide General Election on
Tuesday, November 8, 1994, for the purpose of the election of two (2) Members of the City
Council of the City of Temecnla.
Section 2. That, except for those services routinely conducted by the City Clerk,
delegation is hereby made to the county elections department of the powers and duties of the
elections officer for the City of Temecula to conduct said election in accordance with all
applicable laws and procedures. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only
one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used for each of the two (2) effected
Councilmanic positions.
Section 3. That, in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, said election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in said City.
Section 4. That the City of Temecula recognizes that additional costs will be incurred
by the County, by reason of this consolidation, and agrees to reimburse the County for such
additional costs.
Section 5. That the Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside is hereby
authorized, instructed and directed to give such further or additional notice of said election, in
time form and manner as required.
Section 6. That said Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized to canvass the returns
of said General Municipal Election.
Section 7. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
Resolution with the Board of Supervisors, the county elections department of the County of
Riverside and with the County Clerk.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVI~X) AND ADOPTED, this 281h day of June, 1994.
ATI'/~T:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECLrLA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temeeula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 94- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 281h day of June, 1994, by the following
vote:
CO~C~MtS:
NOES:
C OUNCILMEMBERS:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RE~OLUTION OF T!:!F, CITY COUNCIL OF TFIE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CAL~ORNIA, CAIJ-ING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF ~ HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL
~IJ~-CTION TO BE ~ELI} ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8,
1994, FOR THY~ ~LI~£TION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS
REQUII~k'T} BY TB'E PROVISIONS OF ~ LAWS OF THE
STATE OF CAIJFORNIA R~LATING TO GENERAL LAW
CITIES.
W~ERFAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State
of California a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 3, 1992, for the election
of Municipal Officers;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California
relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Temecula,
California, on TUesday, November 8, 1994, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of
electing two (2) Members of the City Council for the full term of four years.
Section 2.
required by law.
That the ballots to be used at the election shnll be in form and content as
Section 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and
furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and
paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.
Section 4. That the Foils for the election shall be open at seven o'clock AM on the
day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock PM of
the same day when the Foils shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14301 of the
Elections Code of the State of California.
Section 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
Section 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
2/Rcsos/21 1
Section 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 281h day of June, 1994.
A'ITEST:
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALr~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 94-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 281h day of June, 1994, by the following vote:
COUNCIL~ER:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBEE:
COUNCILMIi~MBER:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 23
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
June S. Greek, City Clerk
June 28, 1994
Re-adoption of Curfew Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING
CHAPTER 9.12 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted a curfew ordinance on July 24, 1990, which
provided for the enactment of provisions to protect the public health, safety and welfare
through establishment of curfew regulations.
At the time the City Council was reviewing the Temecula Municipal Code for adoption in its
codified form, the legal review by Book Publishing Company pointed out a section of the
curfew ordinance that was superseded by the State Penal Code. Local ordinances which
prohibit conduct prohibited by state law are void to the extent of the duplication. This was
noted and at the time the City Council was asked to adopt Ordinance No. 93-04 which made
technical and conforming amendments to the Municipal Code in preparation for codification,
a section was inadvertently added which repealed the curfew ordinance in its entirety, rather
than just the duplicate section.
When it came to my attention that the Municipal Code did not include curfew provisions, I
researched the history and discovered the error. As a result, I am presenting for your
consideration a properly edited version of the previously adopted ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
JSG
Proposed Ordinance No. 94-
Ordinance No. 90-11
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE, C1TY COUNCIL OF TFff~ CITY
OF TEMF_flHA ADDING CHAFFER 9.12 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICH'AL CODE PERTAINING TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF T~VIECULA DOES HERFRY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted this Ordinance
in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section 2. Chapter 9.12 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code, which
shall read as follows:
~¢ctions:
9.12.010
9.12.020
9.12.030
9.12.040
"CHAPTER: 9.12
CURFEW FOR MINORS
Intent.
Curfew Established.
Exceptions to Curfew.
Violation of Curfew by Minor.
9.12.010 Intent. In enacting this Chapter, it is the intent of the City Council to
protect children of immature age, to promote the safety and good order in the community,
and to reduce the incidence of juvenile criminal and other anti-social behavior.
9.12.020 Curfew Established. It is unlawful for any person under the age of
eighteen (18) years to loiter or idle upon public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks,
playgrounds, places or buildings between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. of the day
immediately following.
9.12.030 Exc~tions to Curfew. The provisions of Section 9.12.020 shall not
apply in the following circumstances:
R:~ORDS~65 I
A. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by
his or her parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the person
who is under eighteen (18) years of age.
B. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is returning directly
home from school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance, or place of
lawful employment.
C. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is going directly
from home to school or to a school-sponsored meeting or to place of lawful employment.
D. When the person is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by his or
her adult spouse.
E. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is directly in route
from school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance or place of lawful
employment to a place where food is served to the public. This exception shall continue
during the time which is reasonably required to obtain and consume food at such place and to
proceed directly home from such place.
F. When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is performing, or is
in mute directly home from performing, an emergency errand pursuant to the request or
direction of an adult person who is charged with the care and custody of the minor
performing the errand.
9.12.040 Violation of Curfew by Minor-Punishment.
A. Each person under the age of eighteen (18) years, who viohtes subsection (a)
of Section 9.12.020 of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be dealt with in
accordance with State law and procedures governing the pwsecution of minors who are
charged with infractions.
B. Nothing contained in this Section shall be consruled to prohibit the diversion
of juvenile violators of Section 9.12.020 or of this Section 9.12.040 to non-criminal
programs for disposition of such violations, such as youth court proceedings.'
Section 3. SEVERABILrrY The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
R:\ORD$~6S 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199_, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the day of , 199_, by the foilowing vote, to wit:
C OUNC]LMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
C OUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\ORDS~65 4
ORDINANCE NO. 90-11
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAFFER 11.10 TO ~
TElVlECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ~
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Cfr Y' OF TEMECULA DOES I-]F~-RY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE: The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted this
Ordinance in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 2. Chapter 11.10 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Cede, which
shall read as follows:
CHAPrk~R: 11. I0
CURFEV~ FOR MINORS
Sections:
11.10.010
11.10.020
11.10.030
11.10.040
11.10.050
Intent.
Curfew Established.
Exceptions to Curfew
Violation of Curfew by Minor
Responsibility of Adult for Curfew Violations.
11.10.010 Intent. In enacting this Chapter, it is the intent of the City Council to protect
children of immature age, to pwmote the safety and good order in the community, and to reduce
the incidence of juvenile criminal and other anti-social behavior.
11.10.020 Curfew Established. It is unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen
(18) years to loiter, idle, wander, stroll, phy or be present in or upon public streets, highways,
roads, alleys, parks, phygrounds, places or buildings between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 5:00
A.M. of the day immediately foliowing.
11.10.030 Exceptions to Curfew. The provisions of Section 11.10.020 shah not apply
in the following circumstances:
(a) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by his or
her parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the person who is
under eighteen (18) years of age.
3/Reao~/Ordlg0-11
(b) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is returning directly home
from school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance, or place of hwful
employment.
(c) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is going direc~y from
home to school or to a school-sponsored meeting or to place of lawful employment.
(d) When the person is under eighteen (18) years of age is accompanied by his or her
adult spouse.
(e) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is directly in route from
school or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational activity, dance or place of lawful
employment to a place where food is served to the public. This exception shall continue during
the time which is reasonably required to obtain and consume food at such place and to proceed
directly home from such place.
(f) When the person who is under eighteen (18) years of age is performing, or is in route
directly home from performing, an emergency errand pursuant to the request or direction of an
adult person who is charged with the care and custody of the minor performing the errand.
11.10.040 Violation of Curfew by Minor Punishment.
(a) Each person under the age of eighteen (18) years, who violates subsection (a) of
Section 11.10.020 of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be dealt with in
accordance with State law and procedures governing the prosecution of minors who are charged
with infractions.
(b) Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the diversion of
juvenile violators of Section 11.10.020 or of this Section 11.10.040 to non-criminal programs
for disposition of such violations, such as youth court proceedings.
11.10.050 Retponsibility of Adult for Curfew Violations. Each parent, guardian or
other adult person having the legal care or custody of a person under the age of eighteen (18)
years, who causes, permits, aids, abets, suffers or conceals the violation of any provision of
Section 11.10.020, or who conspires with any other person to the end that any provision of
Section 11.10.020 shall be violated, shall be guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 1.01.200 of this Cede and, upon the conviction
thereof, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.01.220 of this Cede. *
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
3/R~so~/OrdsgO*ll
SECTION 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
SECTION 5. F.I~FECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and cause copies of this ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrF_,D this 24th day of/uly, 1990.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATYEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/Re~o~/Otd~0-11
ITEM 24
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY .~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official/'~
June 28, 1994
Karl S. Henning Property - 28613 Pujol Street, Temecula CA
PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, CIP Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a date, time and place of July 26, 1994,
at 7:00 p.m., at 30875 Rancho Vista Road, for the purpose of conducting a Public Hearing
to confirm the cost of nuisance abatement for property located at 28613 Pujol Street, and to
cause that cost to be recorded against the property as a sl~ecial assessment.
DISCUSSION: Ordinance No. 90-24Abatement of Public Nuisance was adopted by City
Council December 4, 1990. This ordinance allows the City to provide a just, equitable and
practical method whereby lands or buildings which are dilapidated, unsafe, dangerous,
unsanitary, cluttered with weeds, debris, abandoned vehicles, or are a menace or hazard to
life, health or general welfare of the City of Temecula, may be required to be repaired
renovated, vacated, demolished or cleaned up by removal of offensive conditions.
On June 15, 1992, hearing officer Harold Wolters, Judge retired, caused the property located
at 28613 Pujol Street and the vacant parcel located across therefrom to be declared a public
nuisance and to order the nuisances abated. The nuisances generally consisted of inoperable
vehicles, barrels of liquids, tires, appliances, scrap materials, and dry brush. The total costs
to abate the nuisance came to $44,986.49. As a result of the nuisance abatement actions
and expenses, Council confirmed the abatement costs on January 4, 1993, directing staff to
place a lien on the property in the amount of $44,986.49.
Most recently, the Building and Safety Department worked under the City Manager's
authorization of $9,100 to demolish the existing house structure and remove a mobile home
from the Henning property. These nuisance abatement actions were completed on April 23,
1994, by Environmental Control Systems, Inc. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section
6.14.013 and 6.14.109, the City Council may assess all costs of abatement against the
property, Exhibit A attached, through the use of the attached Notice of Nuisance Abatement
Assessment Lien. Upon recordation of the Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien
in the office of the County Recorder, the assessment shall constitute a lien on the property.
The Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien and a Notice of Hearing on Nuisance
Abatement Assessment Lien were mailed to the property owner, Karl S. Henning, on June 20,
1994, and posted on the property and at City Hall on June 20, 1994. An Affidavit of Posting
and Proof of Service have been executed.
FISCAL IMPACT: Collection of the $19,757.41 assessment is not expected
immediately. After recordation, a copy of the Notice of Nuisance Abatement Assessment Lien
is delivered to the Riverside County Tax Collector so that the amount of the assessment may
be added to the next regular tax bill levied against the subject property. Assuming non-
payment of the assessment, the amount of the lien may be collected by the City upon the sale
of the property. If no sale takes place, and the assessment remains unpaid for five or more
tax years, the Riverside County Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors may approve the sale
of the property at public auction.
The City may consent to the sale and either receives:
1 ) The total assessment if the sale price exceeds the assessment, property tax, and
penalty delinquencies; or
2) Shares in a proportionate amount of the sale price if such price is lower than the
amount of the assessment, property tax, and penalty delinquencies.
Alternately, the City may object to the sale by adopting a resolution. In this instance, the
City's right to its full assessment survives the sale of the property and the City may attempt
to collect at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. List of Department of Building & Safety Abatement Charges
F, XI4'mIT A
CITY OF TEIVfF~ULA
DEPAR17vfENT OF BI. rlLI}ING AND SAFk~x'Y
ABA~ CHARGES
ADDRESS: 28613 Pujol Street
APN: 922-054-011
Date
Case Investigation
Inspector's Field Time Marianne SalaTar - $25.25
Mileage @ $ .29
Inspector's Office Time
Clerical Time @ $20.83 - Sandie Flaremet
Clerical Time @ $15.50 - Theresa Alvafez
Postage
Inspector's Field Time @ $26.31 - John Rodrigaez
Mileage @ $ .29
Clerical Time - Agenda P~ep @ $15.85 - Althea Kunhs
Building Official - Tony Elmo @ $ Administrative
Field Inspection
Photos
Judge Walters - Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services Inc.
Attorney' s Fees and Costs Billed
Contractor Abatement Costs
TOTAL
Time Spent
17.5 Hours
28.0 Hours
4.0 Hours
7.0 Hours
1.0 Hour
6.0 hours
1.0 Hour
1.0 Hour
Hours
65.5 Hours
Distance
144 miles
1 mile
145 miles
Charges
$441.88
$41.76
$707.00
$83.82
$108.85
$17.48Ceff
$26.31
$ .29
$95.10
$53.65
$53.65
$25.00
$650.00
$8352.62
$9100.00
$19,757.41
ITEM 25
APPRO~
CITY ATI'ORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
June 28, 1994
Revised Solid Waste Rates for FY 1994/95
PREPARED BY: Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file the revised solid waste
rates for single family, multi-family, and commercial refuse and recycling services in the City
of Temecula.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the existing solid waste franchise agreement with Temecula
Environmental, the City Manager has the authority to approve non-disputed rate increase that
related to the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Riverside County landfill tipping fee
adjustments. The rate increases for fiscal year 1994/95 have been reviewed by staff and
approved by the City Manager. The CPI increase as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is 1.8%. The Board of Directors of the Waste Resources
Management District approved a $4.00 landfill tipping fee increase on June 7, 1994 to be
effective for FY 1994/95.
The single family residential refuse and recycling collection rate was heard and approved by
the Board of Directors at the June 14, 1994 public hearing for the TCSD Rates and Charges
for FY 1994/95. The attached Exhibit "D" shows the new rates for collection to be effective
July 1, 1994. Also attached is a comparison between July 1, 1993 and July 1, 1994 rates.
FISCAL IMPACT: The fee increases represent appropriate collection rate adjustments based
on provisions in the solid waste franchise agreement. The franchised and grandfathered solid
waste haulere will begin collecting the new fees as of July 1, 1994. No additional costs will
be borne by the City of Temecula since these services are paid for directly by the customers
receiving the services.
Attachments:
Exhibit "D"
Comparison of Rates
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT "D"
Schedule of Rates
(effective July 1, 1994)
Mechanized single family attached residential collection, disposal,
recycling - grantee billing
composting, and
Monthly Rate: $ 14.38
Mechanized single family detached residential collection, disposal, composting, and
recycling - parcel charge
Monthly Rate: $ 14.38
Mechanized single family attached and detached residential additional refuse, composting,
and recycling container - grantee billing
Monthly Per Container Rate: $ 5.46
Single family attached and detached residential additional bulky item pick up - grantee
bilhng
Pick up Rate: $ 6.53
rates (one 2 cubic
Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential refuse monthly bin
yard bin) with following pick ups per week:
1 x week $ 62.70
2 x week $ 125.40
3 x week $ 188.10
4 x week $ 250.80
5 x week $ 313.50
6 x week $ 376.20
7 x week $ 438.90
Compacted 2 Cubic Yard pick up: 2.5 x weekly pick up rate
Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential refuse monthly bin rates (one 3 cubic
yard bin) with following pick ups per week:
1 x week $ 73.04
2 x week $ 146.08
3 x week $ 219.12
4 x week $ 292.16
5 x week $ 365.20
6 x week $ 438.24
7xweek $ 511.28
Compacted 3 Cubic Yard pick up:
2.5 x weekly pick up rate
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT "D'
Schedule of Rates
(effective July 1, 1994)
Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential recycling monthly bin rates (one 3
cubic yard bin) with following pick ups per week:
lxweek $ 32.15
2 x week $ 64.30
3 x week $ 96.45
4 x week $ 128.60
5 x week $ 160.75
6 x week $ 192.90
7 x week $ 225.05
Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential refuse
yard bin) with following pick ups per week:
1 x week
2 x week
3 x week
4 x week
5 x week
6 x week
7 x week
monthly bin rates (one 4 cubic
$ 83.39
$ 166.78
$ 250.17
$ 333.56
$ 416.95
$ 500.34
$ 583.73
Compacted 4 Cubic Yard pick up: 2.5 x weekly
Commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential recvclin_~
cubic yard bin) with following pick ups per week:
pick up rate
monthly bin rates (one 4
1 x week $ 42.55
2 x week $ 85.10
3 x week $ 127.65
4 x week $ 170.20
5 x week $ 212.75
6 x week $ 255.30
7 x week $ 297.85
10. Temporary 3 cubic yard bin rate:
11. Extra temporary 3 cubic yard pick up:
12. Redeliver and reinstatement rate:
13. Roll-off disposal rate:
14. Roll-off recycling rate:
15. Roll-off compactor rate:
62.38
32.51
26.66
139.33 + lancl~II/recycler fee
139.33 minus market value
278.68 + lanclfill/recycler fee
CITY OF TEMECULA
Comparison of Rates
Service Descriotion
Effective
Julv 1.1993
3. Mechanized single family
attached & detached residential
additional refuse, cornposting, &
recycling container - grantee billing
(Monthly per container)
4.73
4. Single Family Attached & Detached
Residential Additional Bulky Item
Pickup - Grantee Billing (Pickup Rate)
5.79
5. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-
Family Residential Refuse Monthly
Bin Rates (one 2 cubic yard bin)
58.31
6. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-
Family Residential Refuse Monthly
Bin Rates (one 3 cubic yard bin)
68.52
7. Commercial, Industrial & Multi-
Family Residential RefuSq Monthly
Bin Rates (one 3 cubic yard bin)
31.58
8. Commercial, Industrial, & Multi-
Family Residential Recvqlinq Monthly
Bin Rates (one 4 cubic year bin)
78.74
9. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-
Family Residential Recvclino Monthly
bin Rates (one 4 cubic yard bin)
41.80
1 O. Temporary 3 Cubic Yard Bin Rate: 57.99
11. Extra temporary 3 cubic yard Pickup 31.27
12. Redelivery & Reinstatement Rate 26.32
13. Rolloff Disposal Rate 136.87
14. Rolloff Recycling Rate 136.87
15. Rolloff Compactor Rate 273.75
16. Rolloff Recycling Compactor Rate 273.75
Effective
July 1.1994
$ 5,46
6.53
62.70
73.04
32.15
83.39
42.55
62.38
32.51
26.66
139.33
139.33
278.68.
278.68
ITEM 26
DEPARTMENTAL
'REPORTS
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
June 21,1994
Building and Safety May 1994, Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
During the past several months, single family housing starts have averaged upwards of 125
per month. The total housing starts for the fiscal year '93-'94 is fast approaching the 1000
mark. As a result of this volume, the inspection workload has also increased. The department
inspection staff, which consists of three (3) City staff and two (2) project employees last
month performed 3511 building related inspections in response to the increase in permit
activity we have been experiencing.
Code Enforcement has performed inspections on approximately 350 parcels of land within the
City in an effort to gain voluntary weed abatement. This program should be completed within
the next thirty (30) days. This program has been managed by department staff consisting of
one (1) Code Enforcement Officer and a project employee.
The entire Building Department staff has done an excellent job in managing the recent
increased workload.
V:~TO~PORTS%MAY94.RPT
Agenda Report
June 21, 1994
Page 2
The following is a summary of activity for May 1994:
Building Permits Issued ............................................. 169
Building Valuation ..........................................
Revenue Collected ..........................................
Housing Starts .................................................... 43
New Commercial Starts ............................... 2 = 144,718 Sq. Ft.
Commercial Additions/Alterations .......................... 7 = 1,957 Sq. Ft.
Building Inspections ............................................. 3,511
Code Enforcement Actions .......................................... 402
Active Cases Pending .............................................. 347
Closed Cases .................................................... 23
$7,506,913
$74,775.21
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
June 28, 1994
Monthly Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and File
Discussion:
The following is a summary of the Planning Department's
caseload and project activity for the month of May 1994:
Caseload Activity:
The Department received applications for administrative cases and for public hearing
cases for the month of May as follows:
Minor Conditional Use Permit 1
Public Use Permit 1
Rephasing 2
Administrative Cases 6
Total 10
Ongoing Projects:
Old Town Specific Plan: The initial implementation program for the plan was
presented to the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee on May 31 st.
Staff will begin the consultant selection process for the West Main Street
Demonstration Project.
Old Town RedeveloDment Project: Staff continues to meet with Zev Buffman
to identify the scope, scale and approval mechanism for the project. The next
meeting will be June 16th. Project alternative have been developed and the
impacts are being assessed. The Master Conditional Use Permit ordinance was
approved by the Planning Commission on June 6th. Staff is working with the
Hancock Development Company and Hunsaker and Associates to develop the
West Side Specific Plan.
R:~MONTHLY.RPT\1994\MAY 6/20/94 vgw
Development Code: Four industrial area workshops were held in late May.
Staff presented the City's approach to industrial zoning and the business
community provided substantial comments back to staff. The development
provided staff with final comments on the draft code. After the revisions are
made the Advisory Committee will take one more final review. Upon its
recommendation, staff will schedule a joint Planning Commission/City Council
workshop to formally introduce a public hearing draft of the development code.
A draft zoning map will also be presented at the workshop.
French Valley Airport: The City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the
ALUC's preferred alternatives on April 17, 1994.
Temecula Reoional Center SPecific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: The
Specific Plan was scheduled for a Planning Commission Hearing on March 21,
1994 for direction and was continued to May 23, 1994. At the May 23
Planning Commission meeting, the project was
Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the Temecula Regional Center
was approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1993 and certified by
the City Council on July 13, 1993.
Winchester Hills and CamDos Verdes Soecific Plans and Environmental Imoact
Reports: These Specific Plans were discussed at a Planning Commission
Workshop on May 4, 1992 where the Commissioners gave direction to the
applicant and staff. The Notice of Completion for the Campos Verdes EIR went
to State Clearinghouse July 1 O, 1992. Both of these Specific Plans went to the
DRC meetings on January 5, 1993, Campos Verdes Specific Plan was
scheduled for a March 21,1994 Planning Commission Hearing for direction and
was continued to May 23, 1994.
Murdv Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Imnact Report: This Specific Plan
was presented to the Planning Commission at a Workshop on April 6, 1992.
The Commission provided Staff and the applicant direction relative to design
issues. The applicant has incorporated these changes into the Specific Plan.
This Specific Plan will be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting upon
completion of the Development Agreement and the Congestion Management
Plan. An addendure to the EIR is currently being reviewed by staff,
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan: The Specific Plan has been to a Development
Review Committee meeting and is currently being amended to incorporate
staff's comments, The EIR has been submitted and is being reviewed by staff.
A workshop was held at the Planning Commission on April 25, 1994, where the
Commission provided directions to the applicant.
Attachments:
1. Revenue and Status Report - page 3
R:\MONTHLY,RPT\1994\MAY 6/20/94 vgw 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
REVENUE STATUS REPORT
R:\MONTHLY.RPT\1994'~VlAY 6/20/94 vgw 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
/~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 28, 1994
Public Works Monthly Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly
Activity Reports for May, 1994.
\agdrpt\O222~qoactrpt
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Monthly Activity Report
JUNE, 1994 Submitted b~)l'im D. Serlet
Prepared by: Don Spagnolo
Date: June 20, 1994
I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
1. Pala CommuniW Park:
Negotiations between the City and the contractor to revise the scope of work to
reflect the proposed phasing of the project are expected to be completed in June,
1994. Construction should begin in July, 1994.
2. Soorts Park Slope Re,}air:
The contractor is currently installing a protective, reinforced, concrete cap over
M.W.D.'s San Diego Pipeline No. 2. The contractor has completed approximately 65%
of the project, which includes the reconstruction of the slope below Margarita Road,
the installation of an irrigation system and landscaping on the reconstructed slope, and
the reconstruction of a portion of the earthen channel meandering through the park.
3. Loma Linda Park - Ih
A construction contract was awarded to Marina Contractors, Inc. during the June 14,
1994 Board of Directors meeting. Construction is expected to begin in the beginning
of July, 1994. The project consists of grading and the installation of irrigation,
landscaping, play equipment and other amenities.
4. Solaria Way Street Improvements:
On June 20, 1994 Yeager Construction started work by clearing and grubbing. The
contractor is expecting to complete the street widening between Ynez Road and
Margarita Road at the end of August.
5. Ynez Road Landscaoe Imorovements:
On June 15, 1994 Emerald Landscape Services started clearing and grubbing. The
contractor will start at the north end of the project and continue working south to
Rancho California Road. The contractor is expecting to complete the landscaping by
the end of July.
pwO4~rnoactrpt\cip%94Uune 08/20/94
Monthly Activ~y Repo~
Jun~ 1994
Page 2
I1. PROJECTS BEING BID:
1. Long Valley Wash Channel:
Plans and Specifications will be completed by the middle of June, 1994.
Advertisement for the solicitation of bids will begin in late June and the construction
contract should be awarded by the middle of July. Construction is expected to begin
in the beginning of August, 1994 and be completed by the beginning of September,
1994. The project consists of the removal of sediment from several deslilting basins
and portions of the channel flowline, the reconstruction of portions of the channel's
flowline and banks, and the rehabilitation of a rip-rap drop structures.
2. Kent Hinteroardt Memorial Park:
The plans and specifications for the concession stand and rest room facilities at Kent
Hindergardt Memorial Park, Project No. PW94-01CSD, have been completed.
Solicitation of bids will begin in the middle of June, 1994. A construction contract is
expected to be awarded in the middle of July, 1994 and construction is expected to
begin in the middle of August, 1994.
III. WORK IN DESIGN
1. Winchester Road Interim Ramp Imorovements:
The Consultant received Caltrans comments back on May 27, 1994. The final plan
check and comments should be returned to Caltrans by July 8,1994.
2. Winchester Road Loop:
The consultant has submitted the revised Project Report to Caltrans and the plans
were submitted to Caltrans on December 27 for their review.
3. Liefer Road, John Warner Road, and Santiago Road:
The City has selected a consultant for each of the three road projects. The
consultants were selected and ranked on qualifications. Staff has notified all
participants of the results. The service level R funding source for the above road
projects was scheduled for a public hearing on June 14, 1994, but the City Council
has recommended that an alternative source of funding be used for the above project.
pwO4~moactrpt~cip\94Uune 06/20/94
Monthly Activity Report
June, 1994
Page 3
4. Walcott Corridor:
RBF & Associates has started the design and is expected to submit the first plan check
at the end of July.
5. Pala Road/Route 795 Interim Imorovements
A contract has been entered into with Trans-Pacific Consultants to perform
professional engineering services on Pala Road/Route 79S for an east bound to south
bound right turn lane. The consultant submitted improvement plans to Caltrans for
second plan check on Wednesday, June 15, 1994. The consultant will also obtain a
Caltrans encroachment permit.
6. Sports Park Parking and Skate Board Park
The conceptual design has been approved by the Board of Directors. The design
engineer is expecting to submit the improvement plans for first check by the middle
of June, 1994. The improvements include grading, installation of irrigation,
landscaping, roller hockey rink, skateboard park, sidewalk, rest room facility and
parking lot.
pwO4~oactrpt~cip~94~June 06/20/94
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Monthly Activity Report
Special Projects
May, 1994
Submitted b~Tim D. Serlet
Prepared by: Raymond A. Casey
Date: June 16, 1994
FEMA/OES REIMBURSEMENT:
Staff is continuing to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
State Office of Emergency Services (OES) representatives in seeking reimbursement for costs
incurred by the City due to the January 1993 floods and ensuing disaster declaration. OES has
reimbursed the City a total of $246,297 to date.
LIEFER ROAD/BRIDGE (PROJECT NO. PW93-02):
The project has been completed and a ribbon cutting ceremony was held on May 24, 1994.
PARKVIEW SITE (PROJECT NO. PW93-09):
~'he biological review for the Parkview Site is complete and no Gnatcatchers were observed. The
~quest for Engineering Proposals have been submitted for analysis, and the interviews were held
last week.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 159 (AD 159):
The Supplemental Assessment District were approved by the Riverside Debt Advisory Council. The
supplemental Series "A" bonds are now being sold.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 (AD 161 ):
The Supplemental Assessment District is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors hearing of July 13,
1994. The Series "C" bonds, from the original district, have been sold.
r:~ect~t~e~4~yleX9
0000
OOO0
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Suron, Maintenance Superintendent
June 1, 1994
Monthly Activity Report - May 1994
The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division
in-house personnel for the month of May 1994:
I. SIGNS
II.
Ill.
IV.
VI.
A. Total signs replaced
B. Total signs installed
C. Total signs repaired
TREES
A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street
sweeping concerns
POTHOLES
A. Total square feet of potholes repaired
CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations
B. Total S.F.
STENCILING
A. 139 new and repainted legends
B. 2,796 L.F. of red curb new and repainted
C. 4,200 S.F. of sandblasting/grinding
VII.
16
19
1
2
26
2
55,277
23
2,811
r:\roads%actrpt\94\05 06106/94skg
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - May, 1994
Page No. 2
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 26 service order requests ranging from weed abatement,
tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings.
This is compared to 28 service order requests for the month of April, 1994.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 37 hours of overtime which includes standby time, P.M.
surveillance (weekends only), and response to street emergencies.
ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING AND STENCILING COMPANY has completed the followinci:
· 0 L.F. of new and repainted striping
· 0 L.F. of sand blasting
· 0 L.F. of red curb
· 0 new and repainted legends
The total cost for Orange County striping services was $0.00 compared to $6,712.30 for April,
1994.
PESTMASTER SERVICES has completed the followino:
· 59 sites, 479,110 S.F. of right-of-way weed control, total cost $2,850.00 compared to
$3,950.00 for April, 1994.
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of May, 1994 was
4,881.00 compared to $27,138.75 for the month of April, 1994.
Account No. 5402
Account No. 5401
$4,881.00
$0.00
CC:
Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development
Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer
r:%roads~actrpt\94\05 06/06/94skg
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - May, 1994
Page No. 3
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following project for the month of December.
NELSON PAVING AND SEALING
Account No. 5402
Date: May 5, 1994
Emergency Street Repair
Moraga North of Rancho California Road
Furnish and place 3" of AIR 4000 asphalt material to construct street patching and sidewalk repair.
Furnish and place berm material to construct 20' of 8" berm.
Total S.F. 450
Total A.C. 8 Tons
Total Cost $1,700.00
MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
Account No. 5402
Date: May 4, 1994
Moraga @ Temecula Elementary School
Emergency Slope repair due 'to traffic collision
- 4 hrs. D6H dozer
- 7 hrs. 446 Backhoe
- 16 hrs. labor
- Lowbed Truck 4 hrs.
- 8 hrs. labor
- Compactor
Total Cost $2,931.00
ARBOR PRO TREE SERVICE
Account No. 5402
Date: May 19, 1994
Remove and stump grind I dead tree from City R.O.W.
Total Cost $250.00
r:\roeds%actrpt\94%05 06/O6/94skg
DATE
05-02-94
05-02-94
05-03-94
05-04-94
05-04-94
05-05-94
05-09-94
05-09-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05-11-94
05-11-94
05-11-94
05-11-94
05-11-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-17-94
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETED
MAY 1994
SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG
30062 Pechanga Drive Drainage concern
NS Rancho Vista Road Install R-26-D/R-81
Front of C.R.C. WO 94-024
La Primavera @ Pauha Street failure
45366 Zuma Drive Tree removal
41423 Ave. de la Reina Tree removal
Pauba @ Butterfield Stage Litter
East of Pauba & Butterfield Litter
Target Center Sweeper concern
Calle Palmas Wrong Phone UTL Broken fence
East of N.Gen'l Kearney Noisy manhole lid
@ Sierra Madre
Solana E/O Margarita Litter
Ave. de la Reina Broken glass
Ynez Road/Traffic Medians Weed concern
Solana Way Pot hole
200' W/O Acacia Apt.
Flood Channel @ Nicholas Road Children Playing in channel
30062 Pechanga Drainage concern
(Calif, Sunset tract)
Margarita @ Santiago Road Debris on roadway
29920 Via Serrito Weed spray removal
30062 Pechanga Drain concern
27393 Ynez Road Graffiti removed
WORK COMPLETED
05-03-94
05-11-94
05-04-94
05-05-94
05-05-94
05-05-94
05-06-94
05-09-94
05-12-94
05-12-94
05-16-94
05-12-94
05-12-94
05-12-94
05-11-94
05-17-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-17-94
05-17-94
pwO3\roeds\wkcmpltd%94\OS,svrq 060894
Oh- ~ 7-94
05-17-94
05-17-94
05-17-94
05-18-94
05-25-94
30443 Danube
NAN corner of Rio Nedo @ Diaz
30939 Pina Colada
31635 Via Saltio
281 O0 Front
31181 Calle Alhambra
Contractors
removing sidewalk.
Tree trim
White Fly/Aphid infestation
Sight distance problem
T.C. debris removed
Water leak
05-17-94
05-17-94
05-18-94
05-18-94
05-18-94
05-25-94
TOTAL S.O.R'S 26
pwO3%roads%wkcrnplM\94%O5.swq 060894
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
MAY 1994
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
DATE
05-02-94
05-04-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05-12-94
05-12-94
05-13-94
05-13-94
05-13-94
05-13-94
05-17-94
05-17-94
05-19-94
05-19-94
05-20-94
LOCATION
31109 El Torito Court
Nicholas Rd. ~ N. Gen'l Kearney
Winchester Rd.
@ Murrieta Creek Bridge
4180 Enterprise Circle S.
27461 Diaz
28816 Pujol
Winchester Rd. 600 foot
E/O C)iaz
Winchester Rd. @ Murrieta Creek
Jefferson Avenue @ Flood Control
Pala Road @ Wolf Valley
Ave. de la Reina L~ Vista Bahia
Winchester Road ~b Flood Control
27393 Ynez Road L~ Nicholas
31690 Rancho Calif. Road
@ Butterfield Stage Road
Ynez Road (~ Pauba Road
Stonegate ~ Creative
Margarita @ Rancho Calif. Road
WORK COMPLETED
Removed 63 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 232 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 75 S.F, of Graffiti
Removed 150 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 44 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 90 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 20 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 537' S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 350 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 8 S,F. of Graffiti
Removed 10 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 45 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 325 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 36 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 12 S.F. of Graffiti
Removed I S.F. of Graffiti
Removed 60 S.F. of Graffiti
-1- pwO3%roads\wkcmpltd\94%OS.Graffiti 060294
GR,-,. ,:ITI REMOVAL- MAY, 1994
05-23-94
05-26-94
05-27-94
05-27-94
05-31-94
05-31-94
Solana Way E/O Margarita
29645 Rancho California Road
C.R.C. ~ Mira Loma
Winchester Road 2 Diaz
I-15 W/O Equity
Via Dos Picos @ Diaz
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
Removed
2 S.F. of Graffiti
78 S.F. of Graffiti
480 S.F. of Graffiti
45 S.F. of Graffiti
128 S.F. of Graffiti
20 S.F. of Graffiti
TOTAL 23
LOCATION
TOTAL S.F. 2.811
REMOVED
-2o pwO3%roeds\wkcmpltd\94%05.Graffitj 060294
;'1 DATE
05-02-94
05-04-94
05-06-94
05-09-94
05-10-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-18-94
05-18-94
05-25-94
05-26-94
05-26-94
05-31-94
05-31-94
05-31-94
LOCATION
Front S~reet, First St. S/O
Front Street @ Del Rio Plaza N/O
Jefferson N/B Btn. Rancho Calif. Rd.
and Winchester
Rainbow Canyon N/B N/O City Limit
Roripaugh Btwn Winchester
and Nicholas Road
Solana Way E/O Margarita S/S
Solana Way E/O Margarita N/S
Marg. Road N/B S/O Solana Way
Nicholas E/S @ Via Lobo
Calle Medusa W/B W/O Nicholas Road
Cafie Medusa E/B E/O Enfield
Via Lobo Channel
S. Gen'l Kearney @ La Serena
Rancho California Rd. N/O Park Drive
Rancho Way Btwn Diaz and
Business Park Drive
Via Dos Picos
Black Deer Loop
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETED
MAY 1994
WEED ABATEMENT
I
Abated
WORK
1,200
Abated 6, 192
Abated 15
Abated 5,020
Abated 1,250
Abated 5,500
Abated 2,000
Abated 500
Abated 1,500
Abated 3,500
Abated 2,000
Abated 8,250
Abated 10,400
Abated 1,150
Abated 7,900
Abated 300
Abated 400
COMPLETED
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
L.F. of Sidewalk
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S:F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
S.F. of R.O.W. Weeds
55,277 TOTAL S.F.
-1 - pwO3\roegls\wkcmpitd\94%OS.Weeds 060394
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETED
MAY 1994
STREET STENCILING
DATE
05-02-94
05-02-94
.)2-94
05-02-94
05-03-94
05-04-94
05-05-94
05-09-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
'-11-94
U5-12-94
05-16-94
I LOCATION
Rancho Calif.
Road @ Lyndie
Lane
Rancho Calif.
Road E/O Ynez
Road
Rancho Calif.
Road @
Business Park
Dr.
Rancho Calif.
Road
@ Front Street
Meadowview
area
Meadowview
area
Meadowview
area
Meadowview
area
Meadowview
area
Area
Area #4
Area #4
Area
I
Painted
WORK COMPLETED
Painted
Painted
Painted
Grind and repaint
Grind and repaint
Grind and repaint
Grind and rel~aint
Grind and rel3aint
Grind and repaint
Grind and rel~aint
Grind and reDaim
Grind and rel~aint
275 L.F. of Red Curb
150 L.F. of Red Curb
1,040 L.F. of Red Curb
390 L.F. of Red Curb
7 Legends
11 Legends
11 Legends
8 Legends
6 Legends
6 Legends
13 Legends
7 Legends
SB/SL Legends
10
PWO3~ROADSANY, CMPLTD%94~OS.STN 060194
STENCILING - MAY, 1994
05-17-94 Area #4
05-18-94 Area #4
05-19~94 Area #4
05-23-94 Area #4
05-24~94 Nicholas
~ Liefer Road
05-24-94 Area #4
05-25-94 Jefferson @
Tony Roma's
05-26-94 Sparkman
School
05-26-94 Sparkman
School
05-31-94 Area #4
Grind and repaint
Grind and repaint
Grind and repaint
Grind and repaint
Installed 100 L.F. of 4" White edge line.
Repainted 941 L.F. of Red Curb.
Installed 2 "Keep Clear" stencils.
Installed 28 L.F. of double yellow.
Repainted 3 school Cross-walks.
Grind and repainted
SB/SL
11
3
9
13
19
Legends
Legends
Legends
Legends
Legends
TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS
139
TOTAL L.F. RED CURB NEW &
REPAINTED
TOTAL S.F. SANDBLASTING &
GRINDING OF STRIPING & LEGENDS
2,796
4.200
PW03~ROADS/WKCMPLTD%94%05.STN 060194
DATE
I~ 05-06-94
05-06-94
05-06-94
C a-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05~10-94
05-12-94
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETE
MAY 1994
PO THOLES
LOCATION
Moreno Road ~ Front Street
Del Rio N/O Front Street
Rancho Calif. Road between Front
and Margarita
Margarita S/B between Rancho
Calif. Road and Rancho Vista
Front Street and Main Street
Pujol N/O First Street
Rancho Calif. Road @ Moraga
Solana Way @ Acacia Apt.
WORK COMPLETED
4 Cu. Ft. of Teml~. AC
8 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC
3 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC
I Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC
I Cu. Ft. of Temp, AC
4 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC
I Cu. Ft. of Teml~. AC
4 Cu. Ft. of Temp. AC
TOTAL$.F. 26
pWO3%ROAD~;/WKCMPLTD~94%05.POTHOLES 060694
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETE
I DATE
05-02-94
05-03-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05-10-94
05-13-94
05-13-94
05-14-94
05-16-94
05-17-94
05-23-94
05-23-94
05-24-94
05-25-94
05-25-94
MAY 1994
SIGNS
Rancho Calif. Road Replaced
@ Via Los Colinas
Via Norte W/O Pina Colada Installed
Pala Road (City Limit) Overlay
Population
Rainbow Canyon (City Limit) Overlay
Population
Rancho Vista Road @ C.R.C. New Install
Rancho Calif. Rd. (most Wstly) Overlay
Population
Jefferson Avenue (most Nortly) Overlay
Population
Call out TC Replace
Del Rey Road @ Buena Suerte
Mira Loma (Most Wstly) Replace
@ Rancho Vista
Liefer Rd. @ "Bridge" Replace
@ Nicholas
Corte Almonte & Calle Veronica Installed
Ynez Road @ Pauba N.E.C. Replaced
Lifer Road @ Nicholas Installed
Margarita @ Stonewood Replaced
Puesta del Sol @ Avenida Verde Repaired
WORK COMPLETED
R-7 & R-7A
W-7A
R-26-D/R-81
Combo (7)
R-2 "35" SPS "T.C."
R-1 SPS "T.C."
R-1RV-17 SPS New Install
2 N.H.W. Signs
R-260 "T.C."
4 P Markers
R-1 Faded
S.N.S.
PWO3~ROADS/~A/KCMPLTD%94%O5 .SIGNS 060694
SIL ~ - MAY, 1994
05-26-94
05-31-94
05-31-94
Rancho Calif. Rd. W/O
Business Park Drive
Margarita Btwn De Portola &
Pauba
Diaz (~ Rancho Way
Replaced
Replaced
Replaced
R-48&W-14
4R-26-D
W-57
Bullet Holes
2 W-11 Stolen
Type "N" "T.C."
TOTAL
SIGNS
REPLACED
TOTAL
SIGNS
INSTALLED
TOTAL
SIGNS
REPAIRED
16
19
pWO3%ROADS/WKCMPLTD~94~OE,SIGNS 060694
I DATE
05-06-94
05-06-94
05-06-94
05-06-94
05-13-94
05-14-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-16-94
05-17-94
05-18-94
05-18-94
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
WORK COMPLETE
MAY 1994
DEBRIS
Jefferson N/B Pick up debris 2 Bags
Btwn Rancho California Road &
Winchester
Ynez Road S/B Btwn Winchester Pick up debris 1 Bag
& Margarita
Ynez N/B Btwn Winchester Pick up debris 1 Bag
& Margarita
Margarita N/B Btwn Rancho Calif. Pick up debris 1 Bag
Road and Rancho Vista
Pala (Btwn Wolf Valley Pick up debris 1 Bag
& Hwy. 79)
Call out (T.C.) Pick up debris 1 Bag
Del Rey Road @ Buena Suerte
Solana Way E/O Margarita SIS Pick up debris 2 Bags
Solana Way E/O Margarita N/S Pick up debris 1 Bag
Margarita Road N/B Pick up debris 1 Bag
S/O Solana Way
Santiago Road W/B @ Margarita Pick up debris 1 Bag SOR/TC
Calle Medusa @ Nicholas Road Pick up debris 1 Bag
Calle Medusa W/B Nicholas Road .Pick up debris 1 Bag
Calle Medusa E/B E/O Enfield Pick up debris 1 Bag
TOTAL DEBRIS
PICKED UP
15 BAGS
PW03%ROADSA'VKCMPLTD%94\05 .DEBRIS 060694
TRAFFIC DIVISION
Monthly Activity Report
For May, 1994
Submitted b~'~Tim D. Serlet
Prepared by: Marty Lauber
Date: June 20, 1994
I. TRAFFIC REQUESTS
TRAFFIC REQUESTS: March April May
Received 12 5 10
Completed 9 6 11
Under Investigation 10 9 9
Scheduled for Traffic Commission 4 I 2
II.
ON GOING PROJECTS:
Held the third meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's Jefferson
Street Sub-Committee. Major topics covered included: timing of Winchester
Interchange and Overland Drive Bridge projects, accident history and
predominant accident types. The Committee requested staff to update the
collision diagram to include accidents north of Winchester Road and all areas up
to June 30, 1994. They also requested to have signal warrants run for
Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road at Enterprise Circle.
They would also like to work with the Planning Department regarding business
signage along Jefferson Avenue to facilitate effective vehicular guidance. Staff
agreed to place "Keep Clear" pavement legends at the second driveway south
of Winchester Road on the east side of Jefferson Avenue, to improve access.
Provided technical support to the Land Development Division regarding access
issues to State Route 79 (S) which will be incorporated into a request to modify
the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Caltrans.
Finalized the Traffic Division's Policy No. 01 - Hierarchy of Stop Controlled
Intersections. This policy defines sign and pavement marking requirements and
was approved by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission on May 26, 1994.
Traffic Division
Monthly Activity Report
For May, 1994
Page 2
D. Status of Design Projects
Location
Design
Nicolas RdRVinchester Rd - 100% 3/1/94
Temporary Traffic Signal * 5/3/94
Avehide Barca/Margarita Rd - 100% 3/1/94
Traffic Signal ,,e 5/10/94
Margarita Rd/S.R. 79 (S) - 50%
Traffic Signal et
Pale Rd/S.R. 79 (S) - Rt. turn 90% 5/23/94
lane
Submitted to
Celttans
Returned from
Caltrens
4/26/94
5/27/94
4/26/94
Received approval from Caltrans.
Projects will not be authorized to go to bid until receiving federal listing.
Civil engineering design of ultimate improvements is underway for
Margarita/SR79(S).
~\m~sctmt\trafflc%94~ay/ajp
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order
on Tuesday, June 14, 1994, 8:26 P.M., at the Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California, President Jeffrey E. Stone presiding.
PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone
ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Birdsall
Also present were City Manager Ron Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson, and City Clerk
June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Director Roberts, seconded by Director Parks to approve Consent
Calendar Items No. I through 4.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: I
DIRECTORS: Muf~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone
DIRECTORS: None
DIRECTORS: Birdsall
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of May 10, 1994;
1.2 Approve the minutes of May 24, 1994.
Contract ChanQe Order No. 14 - Community Recreation Center. Phase II, Project No.
PW92-29B
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 14 for the Community Recreation
CSDMIN06/14194 1
06/011~4.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14. 1994
Center - Phase II, Project No. PW92-29B, for labor, material, and equipment
in the amount of $48,862.
2.2
Transfer $48,862 from Development Impact Fees to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriate $48,862 to Account No. 250-190-129-5804.
Award of Construction Contract for Loma Linda Park - Phase II, Project No. PW94-
02CSD
3.1
Award a contract for Loma Linda Park, Phase II, Project PW94-02CSD, to
Marina Contractors, Inc. for $104,104.00and authorize the President to
execute the contract;
3.2
Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $10,410.40, which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
Reolacement of Landscape Bonds for Slope Imcrovements - Costain Homes/Vintaae
Hill~
4.1
Authorize the replacement of landscape bonds for slope improvements to
Tract No. 22915-02, Tract No. 22915-3, and Tract No. 22916-3- Costain
Homes/Vintage Hills.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
5. TCSD Proposed Rates and Charaes for Fiscal Year 1994-1995
It was moved by Director Mu~oz, seconded by Director Parks to receive and file
affidavits of publications and mailings. The motion was unanimously carried with
Director Birdsall absent.
President Stone asked TCSD Secretary June Greek if she has received any written
protests or objections against the adoption of rates and charges for park and
community services, street lighting, slope maintenance and a recycling and refuse
program for fiscally year 1992-93 within the Temecula Community Serivces District.
Ms. Greek reported she received letters of protest from: Mrs. Leonilde Farally,
29611 Ramsey Court, Temecula, CA, and Renald J. Anelle, 12139 Mt. Vernon
Ave., Ste 200, Grand Terrace, CA 92324. She reported that three formal requests
to appeal classifications were received from the following:
Masanobu Imakura
c/o Super Moon
3406 N.W. 59th Street
Seattle, WA 98107
Joo S. Yee
4047 Wilshire Blvd., #201
Los Angeles, CA 90010
CSDMIN06/14194 2 06/01/94
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14, 1994
Ingeborg A. Hyde
17847 Lakewood Blvd.
Bellflower, Ca 90706
TCSD Secretary June Greek also reported one recluest to renew a hardship appeal
approved during FY 1993-94 from:
Mr. & Mm. Richard Hoffman
41487 Yankee Run Court
Temecula, CA 92591
It was moved by Director Roberrs, seconded by Director Parks to waive the reading
in full of the letters of protest and to receive and file them for the record.
Director Mur~oz announced he would abstain on this item since he represents Mr. &
Mrs. Hoffman.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 DIRECTORS: Parks, Roberts, Stone
NOES:
0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Birdsall
ABSTAIN: I DIRECTORS: Muf~oz
Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson presented the staff report.
President Stone opened the public hearing at 8:43 PM.
John Hunneman, 39557 Del Val Drive, Murrieta, spoke in favor of the proposed
rates and charges.
David Stovall, 31093 Lahontan St, on behalf of the CRC Foundation, spoke in favor
of the proposed rates and charges:
Director Parks thanked Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson and the
Community Services staff for their efforts and commended them for holding down
costs even though facilities and new parks have been added this year.
President Stone commended Maintenance Superintendent Bruce Hartley for his
control over the maintenance contracts which reduced some costs for the upcoming
year.
CSDMINO6/14194 3 O6/01/94
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14, 1994
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Roberrs to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 94-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES, PARKS AND RECREATION, STREET LIGHTING,
SLOPE MAINTENANCE, RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICES,
AND STREET AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-1995
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
ABSTAIN: 1
DIRECTORS: Parks, Roberts, Stone
DIRECTORS: None
DIRECTORS: Birdsall
DIRECTORS: Muf~oz
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT
None given.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
Director Nelson advised the Board of Directors that in preparation for the 4th of July
fireworks, a controlled burn on the Parkview site will take place on Thursday, June 16th.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
Director Parks asked that the Fire Station be given priority as to master planning of the
Parkview Site. The Board concurred with this request.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Roberrs, seconded by Director Mu~oz to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. to
a meeting on June 28, 1994, 8:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Director
Birdsall absent.
CSDMIN06/14194 4 06/01194
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES JUNE 14, 1994
ATTEST:
President Jeffrey E. Stone
June S. Greek, City Clerk
CSDMIN061141i~4 5 06/01194
ITEM 2
APPRO~
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJECT: TCSD Landscape Maintenance Contracts - FY 1994-95
PREPARED BY:~ Bruce A. Hartley, Maintenance Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
1. Approve purchase order of ~ 184,851 to California Landscape Company to provide
median and park maintenance services for FY 1994-95.
2. Approve purchase order of $ 305,664to Excel Landscape to provide slope and park
maintenance services for FY 1994-95.
BACKGROUND: The Community Services District conducted competitive bids for
landscape maintenance services in March, 1993. The contracts were awarded for a term of
two years. The above recommendations will provide spending authority to execute the second
year of the contract. California Landscape, Inc. currently maintains neighborhood parks and
medians. The amount of the contract for FY 1994-95 is $ 184,851, which includes a 5%
contingency for extra-work items. Excel Landscape maintains slope areas and the Rancho
California Sports Park. The amount of the contract for FY 1994-95 is $ 305,664 which also
includes a 5% contingency for extra-work items.
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the contract with California Landscape is ~ 184,851 The
cost of the contract with Excel Landscape is ~ 305,664. These costs have already been
included in the Community Services Department Budget for FY 1994-95.
CAIJFORNIA LANDSCAPE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS CONTRACT AMOUNTS
Parks
Monthly Amount
Veterans Park P1
Sam Hicks Park P2
Calle Aragon Park P3
Bahia Vista Park P4
Loma Linda Park P5
Rivenon Park P6
John Magee Park P7
Kent Hintergardt P8
Paloma Del Sol SP2
C.R.C. F1
Senior Center F2
1,877.05
280.50
281.29
220.39
568.55
1,958.33
376.13
3,326.31
3,582.81
1,619.00
175.00
PARK SUB-TOTAL:
$ 14,265.36
Annual Amount
22,524.60
3,366.00
3,375.48
2,644.68
6,822.60
23,499.96
4,513.56
39,915.72
42,993.72
19,428.00
2,100.00
$ 171,184.32
IX~.rsIANS CONTRACT AMOUNTS
Rancho Cal Rd Median M1
Ynez Rd Median M2
E. Rancho Cal Median M3
MI~.IHAN SUB - TOTAL:
Total
Total contingency at 5% of total contract:
282.13
100.36
22.86
$405.35
3,385.56
1,204.32
274.32
$ 4,864.20
$ 176,048.52
$ 8802.43
GRAND TOTAL:
$ 184,850.95
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AMOUNTS
Monthly Amount
Annual Amoum
Saddlewood/Pavillion S-1
Winchester Creek S-2
P, ancho Highlands S-3
Vineyards S -4
Signet Series S-5
Woodcrest S-6
Ridgeview S -7
Villages A/B S-8
Rancho Solaria S-9
Martinque S-10
Meadowview S - 11
Vintage Hills S-12
Preslev S-13
SLOPE SUB - TOTAL:
2,270.00
1,150.00
492.85
243.83"
2,423.83
535.00
701.73
4,528.01
124.50
340.00
143.36
3,724.15
704.00
$17,381.26
27,240.00
13,800.00
5,914.20
2,925.96
29,085.96
6,420.00
8,420.76
54,336.12
1,494.00
4,080.00
1,720.32
44,689.80
8,448.00
$ 208,575.12
Rancho California Sports Park
PARK SUB - TOTAL:
Total
Total contingenct at 5% of total contract:
COMMUNITY pAllKS
6,877.81
$ 6,877.81
GRAND TOTAL:
82,533.72
$ 82,533.72
$ 291,108.84
$14,555.44
$ 305.664.28
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and Excel
Landscape (J & R Landscape), (hereinafter referred to as "'Agreement") is hereby
amended as follows:
Section 1
Term of the Agreement is extended through J, r~_-30_, 1 qg5,
Section 2
The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following:
Landscape Maintenance Services per City of Temecuia Specifications for the following
area: Rancho California Sports Park.
Section 3
Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all 'services described in the
Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed 96,877.81.
Section 4
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written.
"/~cel Landsca~; (J & R Landscape) General Manager
U
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
A'I'FEST:
AMENDMEI' ', ,J AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSION. . SERVICES
The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and Excel
Landscape (J & R Landscape), (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby
amended as follows:
RE: Landscape Maintenance Services
Section 1
Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1995.
Section 2
The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following:
Landscape Maintenance Services per City of Temecuia Specifications for the following
area: Slope Service Area "A". This includes the following sites: Winchester Creek,
Woodcrest Country, Saddlewood/Pavilion Pointe, Martinique.
Section 3
Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the
Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed 94,295.00.
Section 4
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written.
By: By: ~~
irdsall, President
Community Services District
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
A3'FEST:
AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into this 11 th day of May 1993.
By and Between
City of Temecula, a
Municipal corporation
hereinafter referred to
as "CITY"
and
Excel Landscape (J & R Landscape
a California CorPoration
hereinafter referred to
as "CONTRACTOR"
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CiTY desires to obtain the services of a landscape maintenance contractor
to perform landscape maintenance within the CITY's greenbelts, landscape service
areas, medians, open space areas, parkS'and rights-of-way.
WHEREAS, Contractor is a firm that possesses the necessary equipment, licenses,
insurance, and personnel to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, CITY's Council has authorized execution of this AGREEMENT to retain the
services of Contractor.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that CITY does hereby retain Contractor to
provide landscape maintenance under the following terms:
1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
The complete Contract includes all of the Specifications. When the Specifications
describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is
understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and
that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the
CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and
do all the work involved in executing the Contract.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and
furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility
and transportation services required for the following:
"City of Temecula: General Landscape Maintenance Specifications" and for areas and
dollar amount as specified in Attachment 'A'.
3. CHANGE ORDERS
All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manger
is hereby authorized by the City Coun'~il to make, by written order, changes or
additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by
the City Council.
4. PAYMENTS
The City agrees to compensate monthly the Contractor for services at the rates on the
schedule attached'hereto as Exhibit 1, incorporated herein by reference, for services
actually performed. Included with monthly billing will be the work functions
accomplished during that period, (i.e., fertilization, pest control, etc.). The City shall
review the invoices submitted by the Contractor to determine whether the services
were performed. Payment shall be made thirty-five (35) days following submittal of
the invoice, or City shall provide the Contractor with a written statement objecting to
the invoice.
Monthly invoices shall be sent to:
City of Temecula
Finance Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; NONPERFORMANCE
Contractor may be assessed penalties by City up to one hundred percent
(100%) of the monthly value of a bid item for nonperformance and up to
sixty percent (60%) of the monthly value of a bid item for substandard
performance. Such penalties shall be assessed at the discretion of the City,
Contractor shall be notified of any penalties in accordance with the terms of
this Contract,
The Contract may be terminated by City for failure of Contractor to
satisfactorily perform any corrective action after being notified of Service
failure on more than seven (7) occasions during the base term of the Contract.
C. Contractor shall be notified of service failure by delivery of a "Performance
Deficiency Notification" form (See Section XV) to Contractor by City.
Said notice will serve as formal notification that Contractor has incurred a
service deficiency sufficiently material that contract termination may result
if satisfactory corrective action is not taken by Contractor.
The Performance Deficiency Notification will contain the acceptable time
period for service correction. U~n Deficiency Notification, the correction will
either be accepted or rejected. If accepted, part or all of the penalties may
be waived, regardless of whether City has incurred loss as a result of said
service failure.
Contractor will be notified of correction acceptance status by delivery of a
Performance Deficiency Status Memorandum. Should correction not be
accepted; a separate additional Performance Deficiency Notification will be
delivered to Contractor, thus increasing the number of Deficiency Notices
received by Contractor,
If Contractor should neglect or refuse or fail for any reason to perform the
work, the City may terminate the Contract for-nonperformance with five (5)
days written notice to Contractor.
In case of termination by the City for nonperformance, the City may contract
or cause to be done any work 'not completed at the time of the termination,
and the Contractor shall pay for such work.
6. WAIVER OF CLAIMS
Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Contract, on or before making each
request for payment, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for
compensation under or arising out of this Contract; the acceptance by CONTRACTOR
of each payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against CITY under or arising
out of this Contract except those previously made in writing and request for payment.
Contractor shall execute an affidavit and release with each claim for payment.
7. PREVAILING WAGES
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor code of the State of
California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages
and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director
of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk.
Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR
~hall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted
prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions
of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of th'~ Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to
the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of ~25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof,
for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated
prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any
subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract.
8. LIABILITY INSURANCE
CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies:
"1 am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every
employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or undertake self-
insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract,
9...TERM
The Contract shall remain in full force and effect for a period of 24
months from the date of written notice to proceed, unless terminated by
either pare/.
City reserves the right to exercise its option to extend this Agreement for one
two-year extension within ninety (90) days prior to its expiration. Contract
price shall be adjusted at the beginning of each calendar year in accordance
with the changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers in the
Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area published monthly by the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI).
C. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause with ninety (90)
days written notice to the other party.
10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE
Time is of the essence in this Contract.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
All work covered by this Contract done at the work site or in preparing or delivering
materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR
agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees,
and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death Of persons (CONTRACTOR's
employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the
obligations herein undertaken or out of tee operations conducted by CONTRACTOR,
save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole
willful misconduct of the CITY.
12. CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
No plea of ignorance of conditions that exist or that may hereafter exist or of
conditions or difficulties that may be encountered in the execution of the work under
this Contract, as a result of failure to make the necessary independent examinations
and investigations, and no plea of reliance on initial investigations or reports prepared
by CITY for purposes of letting this Contract out to bid will be accepted as an excuse
for any failure or omission on the part of the CONTRACTOR to fulfill in every detail
all requirements of this Contract. Nor will such reasons be accepted as a basis for
any claims whatsoever for extra compensation or for an extension of time.
13. GRATUITIES
CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or
representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is
not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect,
engineer, or other provider of Specifications. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no
person in his/her employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date
of the Notice Inviting Bids.
15. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT
Simultaneously with submitting each monthly invoice, CONTRACTOR shall file with
the City his affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms
supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and
that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials,
except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or
items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of
the laws of the State of California.
16, SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR
Corporations
The signature must contain the name of the corporation, must be signed by the
President and Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and the corporate seal must be
affixed. Other persons may sign for the corporation in lieu of the above if a certified
copy of a resolution of the corporate board of directors so authorizing them to do so
is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Partnerships
The names of all persons comprising the partnership or co-partnership must be stated.
The bid must be signed by all partners comprising the partnership unless proof in the
form of a certified copy of a celticate of partnership acknowledging the signer to be
a general partner is presented to the City Clerk, in which case the general partner may
sign.
Joint Ventures
Bids submitted as joint ventures must so state and be signed by each joint venturer.
Individuals
Bids submitted by individuals must be signed by the bidder, unless an up-to-date
power of attorney is on file in the City Clerk's office, in which case said person may
sign for the individual.
The above rules also apply in the case of the use of a fictitious firm name. In
addition, however, where the fictitious name is used, it must .be so indicated in the
signature.
17. SUBSTITUTED SECURITY
In accordance with Section 22300 of the Public Contracts Code, CONTRACTOR may
substitute securities for any monies withheld by the CITY to ensure performance
under the Contract. At the request and expense of the CONTRACTOR, securities
equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the CITY or with a State
or Fedorally chartered bank or an escrow agent who shall pay such monies to the
CONTRACTOR upon notification by CITY of CONTRACTOR's satisfactory completion
of the Contract. The type of securities deposited and the method of release shall be
approved by the City Attorney's office.
18. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES
Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is
delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR
shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect
thereto, to CITY.
19. BOOKS AND RECORDS
CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged
in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to
inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
20. UTILITY LOCATION
CITY acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities
pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215.
21. REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS
CONTRACTOR agrees to contact the appropriate regional notification center in
accordance with Government Code Section 4216.2.
22. TRENCH PROTECTION AND EXCAVATION
CONTRACTOR shall submit its detailed plan for worker protection during the
excavation of trenches required by the scope of the work in accordance with Labor
Code Section 6705.
CONTRACTOR shall, without disturbing the condition, notify CITY in writing
as soon as CONTRACTOR, or any of CONTRACTOR's subcontractors,
agents, or employees have knowledge and reporting is possible, of the
discovery of any of the following conditions:
The presence of any material that the CONTRACTOR believes is
hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safe~y
Code:
2. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those
indicated in the specifications; or
Unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different
materially for those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as
inherent in work of the character provided for in this Contract.
Pending a determination by the CITY of appropriate action to be taken,
CONTRACTOR shall provide security measures (e.g,, fences) adequate to
prevent the hazardous waste or physical conditions from causing bodily injury
to any person.
CITY shall promptly investigate the reported conditions. If CITY, through,
and in the exercise of its sole discretion, determines that the conditions do
materially differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and will cause a decrease
or increase in the CONTRACTOR's cost of, or time required for, performance
of any part of the work, then CITY shall issue a change order.
In the event of a dispute between CITY and CONTRACTOR as to whether the
conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease
or part of the work, CONTRACTOR shall not be excused from any scheduled
completion date, and shall proceed with all work to be performed under the
contract. CONTRACTOR shall retain any and all rights which pertain to the
resolution of disputes and protests between the parties.
23. INSPECTION
The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY. All inspections and tests
shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall
be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other
prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after
completion of the work.
24. DISCRIMINATION
CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in
its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color,
sex, age, or handicap.
25. GOVERNING LAW
This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by the law of the
State of California. Venue shall be the County of Riverside.
26. WRITFEN NOTICE
Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall
be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the
address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the
CITY addressed as follows:
Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed
on the date first above written.
DATED:
EXCEL ANDSCAPE (J & R LANDSCAPE)
Print or type TITLE
DATED: June 8, 1993
Scott F. Field, City At-torn/m/
CITY OF TEMECULA
By: ;Mu~noz, Ma~or~'~
J. S Munoz,
ATTEST:
JunLS)Y. Greek, City
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The Agreement dated May 11, 1993 , between the City of Temecula, and
California Landscape, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby
amended as follows:
RE: LendsceDe Maintenance Services
Section 1
Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1995.
Section 2
The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following:
Landscaoe Maintenance Services Per City of Temecula Specifications for the followino
areas: John Maoee Park (Seot. 1, 1993 thru June 30, 1995), Medians Service Area
(Nov. 1, 1993 thru June 30, 1995), and Kent Hinteroardt Memorial Park (Nov. 1,
1993 thru June 30, 1995).
Section 3
Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the
Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed $376.13 for John Maclee
Park, 9475.00 for Medians Service Area. and 93.326.31 for Kent Hinteraardt
Memorial Park.
Section 4 *_ :~ ~ ~ '*
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written.
~ cia H. Birdsall, President
California C. Community Services District
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Reid, City Attorney
A'R'EST:
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSION~,~ SERVICES
The Agreement dated May 11, 1993, between the City of Temecula, and California
Landscape, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is hereby amended as
follows:
RE: Landscape Maintenance Services
Section 1
Term of the Agreement is extended through June 30, 1995.
Section 2
The Scope of Work is hereby amended by adding the following:
Landscape Maintenance Services per City of Temecula Specifications for the following
area: Paloma Del Sol Park.
Section 3
Compensation for services shall be total compensation of all services described in the
Amendment and shall be payable monthly not to exceed $3,582.81.
Section 4
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Ju~.G~~
AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into this 1 lth day of May 1993.
By and Between
City of Temecula, a
Municipal corporation
hereinaffer referred to
as "CITY"
and
California Landscape
a California Corporation
hereinaftar referred to
as "CONTRACTOR"
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY desires to obtain the services of a landscape maintenance contractor
to perform landscape maintenance with~ the CITY's greenbelts, landscape service
areas, medians, open space areas, parks and rights-of-way.
WHEREAS, Contractor is a firm that possesses the necessary equipment, licenses,
insurance, and personnel to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, CITY's Council has authorized execution of this AGREEMENT to retain the
services of Contractor.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that CITY does hereby retain Contractor to
provide landscape maintenance under the following terms:
5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; NONPERFORMANCE
Contractor may be assessed penalties by City up to one hundred percent
(100%) of the monthly value of a bid item for nonperformance and up to
sixty percent (60%) of the monthly value of a bid item for substandard
performance. Such penalties shall be assessed at the discretion of the City.
Contractor shall be notified of any penalties in accordance with the terms of
this Contract.
The Contract may be terminated by City for failure of Contractor to
satisfactorily perform any corrective action after being notified of service
failure on more than seven(7) occasions during the base term of the Contract.
C. Contractor shall be notified of service failure by delivery of a "Performance
Deficiency Notification" form (See Section XV) to Contractor by City.
Said notice will serve as formal notification that Contractor has incurred a
service deficiency sufficiently material that contract termination may result
if satisfactory corrective action is not taken by Contractor.
The Performance Deficiency N~ti~cation will contain the acceptable time
period for service correction. Upon Deficiency Notification, the correction will
either be accepted or rejected. If accepted, part or all of the penalties may
be waived, regardless of whether City has incurred loss as a result of said
service failure.
Contractor will be notified of correction acceptance status by delivery of a
Performance Deficiency Status Memorandum. Should correction not be
accepted, a separate additional Performance Deficiency Notification will be
delivered to Contractor, thus increasing the number of Deficiency Notices
received by Contractor.
D. If Contractor should neglect or refuse or fail for any reason to perform the
work, the City may terminate the Contract for nonperformance with five (5)
days written notice to Contractor.
In case of termination by the City for nonperformance, the City may contract
or cause to be done any work not completed at the time of the termination,
and the Contractor shall pay for such work.
6. WAIVER OF CLAIMS
Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Contract, on or before making each
request for payment, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for
compensation under or arising out of this Contract; the acceptance by CONTRACTOR
of each payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims against CITY under or arising
out of this Contract except those previously made in writing and request for payment.
Contractor shall execute an affidavit and release with each claim for payment.
7. PREVAILING WAGES
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor code of the State of
California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages
and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft,
classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director
of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk.
CopiesmaybeobtainedatcostattheCityClerk'sofficeofTemecula. CONTRACTOR
shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted
prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions
of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor C. ode, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to
the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof,
for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated
prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any
subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract.
8. LIABILITY INSURANCE
CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies:
"l am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every
employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or undertake self-
insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract.
9. TERM
The Contract shall remain in full force and effect for a 'period of 24
months from the date of written notice to proceed, unless terminated by
either party.
City reserves the right to exercise its option to extend this Agreement for one
two-year extension within ninety (90) days prior to its expiration. Contract
price shall be adjusted at the beginning of each calendar year in accordance
with the changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers in the
Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area published monthly by the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI).
C. Either parcy may terminate this Agreement without cause with ninety (90)
days written notice to the other par~/.
10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE
'Time is of the essence in this Contract.
11. INDEMNIFICATION
All work covered by this Contract done at the work site or in preparing or delivering
materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR
agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees,
and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's
employees included) and damage to pro~.ercy, arising directly or indirectly out of the
obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR,
save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole
willful misconduct of the CITY.
12. CONTRACTOR'S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
No plea of ignorance of conditions that exist or that may hereafter' exist or of
conditions or difficulties that may be encountered in the execution. of the work under
this Contract, as a result of failure to make the necessary independent examinations
and investigations, and no plea of reliance on initial investigations or reports prepared
by CITY for purposes of letting this Contract out to bid will be accepted as an excuse
for any failure or omission on the part of the CONTRACTOR to fulfill in every detail
all requirements of this Contract. Nor will such reasons be accepted as a basis for
any claims whatsoever for extra compensation or for an extension of time.
13. GRATUITIES
CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or
representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is
not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect,
engineer, or other provider of Specifications. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no
person in his/her employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date
of the Notice Inviting Bids.
15. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT
Simultaneously with submitting each monthly invoice, CONTRACTOR shall file with
the City his affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms
supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and
that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials,
except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or
items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of
the laws of the State of California.
16, SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR
Corporations
The signature must contain the name of the corporation, m. ust be signed by the
President and Secretary or Assistant Secretan/, and the corporate seal must be
affixed. Other persons may sign for the corporation in lieu of the above if a certified
copy of a resolution of the corporate board of directors so authorizing them to do so
is on file in the City Clerk's office.
PartnershiPs
The names of all persons comprising the partnership or co-partnership must be stated.
The bid must be signed by all partners comprising the partnership unless proof in the
form of a certified copy of a certificate of partnership acknowledging the signer to be
a general partner is presented to the City Clerk, in which case the general partner may
sign.
Joint Ventures
Bids submitted as joint ventures must so state and be signed by each joint venturer.
individuals
Bids submitted by individuals must be signed by the bidder, unless an up-to-date
power of attorney is on file in the City Clerk's office, in which case said person may
sign for the individual.
The above rules also apply in the case of the use of a fictitious firm name. In
addition, however, where the fictitious name is used, it must be so indicated in the
signature.
17. SUBSTITUTED SECURITY
In accordance with Section 22300 of the Public Contracts Code, CONTRACTOR may
substitute securities for any monies withheld by the CITY to ensure performance
under the Contract. At the request and expense of the CONTRACTOR, securities
equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the CITY or with a State
or Federally chartered bank or an escrow agent who shall pay such monies to the
CONTRACTOR upon notification by CITY of CONTRACTOR's satisfactory completion
of the Contract. The type of securities deposited and the method of release shall be
approved by the City Attorney's office.
18. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES
Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is
delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR
shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect
thereto, to CITY.
19. BOOKS AND RECORDS
CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged
in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to
inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
20. UTILITY LOCATION
CITY acknowledges its responsibilities with respect to locating utility facilities
pursuant to California Government Code Section 4215.
21. REGIONAL NOTIFICATION CENTERS
CONTRACTOR agrees to contact the appropriate regional notification center in
accordance with Government Code Section 4216.2.
22. TRENCH PROTECTION AND EXCAVATION
CONTRACTOR shall submit its detailed plan for worker protection during the
excavation of trenches required by the scope of the work in accordance with Labor
Code Section 6705.
CONTRACTOR shall, without disturbing the condition, notify CITY in writing
as soon as CONTRACTOR, or any of CONTRACTOR's subcontractors,
agents, or employees have knowledge and reporting is possible, of the
discovery of any of the following conditions:
The presence of any material that the CONTRACTOR believes is
hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety
Code:
2. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those
indicated in the specifications; or
Unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different
materially for those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as
inherent in work of the char_..acter provided for in this Contract.
Pending a determination by the CITY of appropriate action to be taken,
CONTRACTOR shall provide security measures (e.g., fences) adequate to
preventthe hazardous waste or physical conditions from causing bodily injury
to any person.
CITY shall promptly investigate the reported conditions. If CITY, through,
and in the exercise of its sole discretion, determines that the conditions do
materially differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and will cause a decrease
or increase in the CONTRACTOR's cost of, or time required for, performance
of any part of the work, then'CITY shall issue a change order.
In the event of a dispute between CITY and CONTRACTOR as to whether the
conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease
or part of the work, CONTRACTOR shall not be excused from any scheduled
completion date, and shall proceed with all work to be performed under the
contract. CONTRACTOR shall retain any and all rights which pertain to the
resolution of disputes and protests between the parties.
23. INSPECTION
The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY. All inspections and tests
shall 'be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall
be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other
prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be.made within a reasonable time after
completion of the work.
24. DISCRIMINATION
CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in
its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color,
sex, age, or handicap.
25. GOVERNING LAW
This Contract and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by the law of the
State of California. Venue shall be the County of Riverside.
26, WRI'I'FEN NOTICE
Any written notice required to be given'in any part of the Contract Documents shall
be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the
address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the
CITY addressed as follows:
Shawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed
on the date first above written.
DATED:
:~ NDSCAPE
Print or type TITLE
DATED: June 8, 1993
city Atto;nZ ,'
ATTEST:
CITY OF TEMECULA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BOND NO.890] 0827
Premium $677.00/1 r.
PERFORMANCE B~D
FOR
lANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
THAT, WHEREAS, the City of Ternecula, State of California, entered into a contract
dated Nay 11th ,1993 , hereinafter called "Contract," with:
C~lHron"zja La~dscaDe
NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR
hereinafter called "Principal," for the work described as follows:
Neighborhood Parks
; and
WHEREAS, the said Principal is required under the terms of said Contract to furnish
a bond for the faithful performance of said_Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Principal, and
Vigilant Insurance Company
NAME OF SURETY
duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety,
hereinafter called "Surety," are held and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula in the penal
sum of Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Flfty and 36/100th~ DOLLARS and
CENTS ($ 45, ] 50.36 l. lawful money of the United States,
for the payment of which sum we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that, if the Principal, his or its heirs,
executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to, abide by, and
well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in the said
Contract, and in any alteration thereof made as therein pr6vided, on his or its part to be kept
and performed, at the time and in the manner therein specified, in all respects according to
their true intent and meaning, and sh.all indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula.
its officers and agents, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void;
otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and virtue.
CITY OF TEMECULA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BOND NO. 890l 0827
Premium included in FP Bond
LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND
FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT, WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has awarded to
CaJj. forDj. a Landscape
CONTRACTOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
hereinafter called "Contractor," a contract for the work described as follows:
Neighborhood Parks
· hereinafter called "Contract," and
WHEREAS, said Contractor is require"d by the provisions of Sections 3247-3252 of the
Civil Code to furnish a bond in connection with said Contract, as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the undersigned Contractor, as Principal, and
Vigilant Insurance Company, 15 Mountain View Rd, Warren, New Jersey 07061~1615
NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY
duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety,
hereinafter called "Surety," are held and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula, California,
and all contractors, sUbcontractors, laborers, materialmen, and other persons employed in the
performance of the aforesaid Contract and referred to in Title 15 of the Civil Code, in the
penal sum of FOrty Five Thousand One Hundred Fift~v and 36/l(l(lfh~
DOLLARS and CENTS ($ 45,150.36 ), lawful
money of the United States, said sum being not less than fifty (50%) of the estimated annual
amount payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract, for the
payment of which, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Know all Men byehess Presents, That the VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Mountain Vmw Reid, Wsffen, New Jersey, a New york Corpora-
lion. has COnstituted end appointed, Ind does hereby constitute and appoint Hovard Siskel. Richard Adair, Joseph E. Cochran,
and Bron~yn Hutdock of Los Angeles, California
each its true and taw~u Attomey4n-Fact to execute under such designation in IIs name Ind to affix its COrporate seal to and deliver for and on its behaU es
surely thereon or otherwise, pentie or obligations given or executed n the course of its business, and consents for the release of retained percentages mr
final estimates.
~m,i~=~ 19Ch eye November ~o 92
County of Somerset
o,,.,,. 19oh e,., November st 92 .~w, mnmwav=am~a, no. er.,n~ml,,mm~mum,m**mt, mmlkm~v,~mvmu~v~
iANFr~S~VO~
.93
,w,w.~.w,.wvm.~v.mmwacmem.vwawmwm,mmam.,www---.mmesww Cali forni a
6..._.~..,,.,.,m.,,.ec.~wsw.m~,u.-. 17th ~w June
CITY OF TEMECULA, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND RELEASE
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
This is to certify that C=11foz-aj.a T.a~dscaDe (hereinaher the
"undersigned") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that it has paid in full for all
materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the
undersigned or by any of the undersigned's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in
contribution to the execution of its Landscape Maintenance contract with the City of
Temecula, as follows:
The undersigned declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said
Contract which Would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice of any
unpaid sums owing to the undersigned.
Further, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
undersigned does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and
employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or causes
of action which exist or might exist in favor of the undersigned by reason of the Contract
executed between the undersigned and the City of Temecula or which relate in any way to
the work performed by the undersigned with regard to the above-referenced Landscape
Maintenance Contract.
Further, the undersigned expressly acknowledges its awareness of, and waives the
benefits of, Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California which provides: "A
general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to
exist in his favor at 'the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have
materially effected his settlement with the debtor."
This release is intended to be a full and general release of any and all claims which the
undersigned now has or may, in the future, have against the City of Temecu|a and/or its
agents and employees with regard to any matter arising from the construction of the above-
referenced project or the Contract between the City of Temecula and the Contractor with
respect thereto, whether such claims are now known or unknown or are suspected or
unsuspected.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that, if said Contractor, his or its heirs,
executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, or subcontractors, shall fail to pay for any
materials, provisions, provender or other supplies, or teams, implements or machinery, used
in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work under the Contract to be done, or for any
work or labor thereon of any kind or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance
Code with respect to such work or labor, as required by the provisions of Chapter 7 of Title
5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and provided that the claimant shall have compiled
with the provisions of said Civil Code, the Surety shall pay for the same in an amount not
exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. In
case suit is brought upon this bond, the Surety will pay costs and reasonable expenses and
fees, including reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the Court,
This bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations
entitled to file claims under Section 3181 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to
them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond, and shall also cover payment for any
amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development
Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor or his or its subcontractors
pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code.
The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or
addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the
specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond.
The Surety hereby waives notice of any suchJ;hange, extension of time, alteration. or addition
to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the
specifications accompanying the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and
Surety above named, on June ] 7th , 19 93
Richard Adair
(Print Name)
Attorney in Fact
(Print Title)
P~<~,~~andscape
(Print Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SCOI'F F. FIELD, City Attorney
By:
(Print Name)
(Print Title)
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount
specified, costs and reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred by the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, all
to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration
or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the
specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond,
and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition
to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, or to the specifications.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and
Surety above named, on June ]7th , 19 93 .
Richard Adair
(Print Name)
Attorney in Fact
(Print Title)
L M"~C~a Landscape
(Print Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D, City Attorney
By:
(Print Name)
(Print Title)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
C0UNTYOF LOS ANGELES
OFFICIAL SEAL
pATRIC1A A, DOLAN
NOTARY pUBLIC-C~LI~ORNI&
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
My Comrnilg, mn E,~iml F~. 8, t~95
(Sea~)
ss. :
On June 17.1993 betomme. Patricia A. Dolan, a
Nora rv Publ i c
pe~on~lWappeRre, Richard Adair,Attorney in Fact
· personally known to me (er..lamv~{~ tone on
the basis ot satisfactory evidence) to be m person(s) whose name~) is/am.subscribed Io the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s/~e/~he~/executed the same in ttiSThe~/llWLr-
m/~todzed capacity(ies), ant by hisrneWtheW. signature(s) on the instrument the pezson(s~
or the entity upon I}ehaltthe person(s) acted, executed the in ent
ITEM 3
APPRO~.
CITY ATFORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJECT:
Muni Financial Services Contract
PREPARED BY: ~ ~lBeryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Approve contract with Muni Financial Services to provide assessment administration services
related to the TCSD Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to an agreement dated March 15, 1991, Muni Financial
Services (MFS) has provided assessment administration services regarding the annual TCSD
Rates and Charges. These services include preparing the TCSD levy report, analyzing parcel
activity, updating software data, conducting field surveys, calculating the equivalent dwelling
units (EDU's) per the City's rate formula, and submitting the levy tape to the County of
Riverside for inclusion on the property tax rolls. MFS also coordinates the mailing of the public
hearing notices and parcel charges to all the property owners within the City.
For Fiscal Year 1994-95, the TCSD will administer rates and charges for (5) service levels,
which include 14,654 parcels within the City. Approximately 73,270 data entries were
required to prepare the Fiscal Year 1994-95levy report. Additionally, the method of spreading
the apportionment of the rates and charges requires the input of accurate parcel data to insure
equity throughout the TCSD. MFS also monitors new legislation which may effect the TCSD
and the current assessment process.
Therefore, it is recommended that a contract for 918,750 be awarded to MFS to provide for
the ongoing administration of the TCSD Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of the assessment administration services and
reimbursables will not exceed 918,750. This amount has already been included in the
Community Services, Parks, and Recreation Budget for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
ATTACHMENTS:
Agreement with Muni Financial Services.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 1st day of July 1994, by and between
the City of Temecula (C/ty), a municipal corporation, and Muni Financial Services Inc.
(MFS), a Financial Service (Consultant).
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. .Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto. Consultant shah complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the
best of his/her ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
3. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hou~y rates set
forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. The
amount will not exceed $18,750 for the term of the Agreement.
Consultant will submit invoices quarterly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each quarter, for services provided in
the previous quarter. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each
invoice.
4. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is
in writing and agreed upon by both the City and Consultant.
5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs,
drawings and notes prepaxed in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant
to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or
otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the
termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services
performed.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and
all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City,
its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them
for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultants acts or
omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole
negligence of the City.
8. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in
the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for
any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be
liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of
performing services hereunder.
9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1994 and shall remain and
continue in effect through June 30, 1995.
10. Subcontracts. The Consultant Shall not enter into any subcontracts for services
to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without
the consent of the City. At all times, Don Webber shall be primarily responsible for the
performance of the tasks described herein. Consultant shall provide City with fourteen (14)
days' notice prior to the departure of Den Webbet from Consultant's employ. Upon such
notice, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon
termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for the value of
service rendered to the City.
11. DefaUlt. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not
performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of
the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder,
if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the
Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be
resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et
seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written.
CONSULTANT
By:
Title
ATrP_;ST:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Jeff Stone, President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
June S. Greek, Secretary/City Clerk
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
Section 1 of the agreement specifies the Scope of Services to provide special district
administration services itemized in the following paragraphs.
Community Services District Assessment Administration Services
Meet with City as needed to gather information, discuss City needs and concerns,
project history, services provided by the District, etc.
Assist City staff in preparing budgets. MFS will provide comparison studies as
requested by staff to aid in the analysis of various methods of assessment, benefit to
equity evaluations, EDU calculations and rates, etc.
Review Boundary Diagrams and on-site characteristics of the District in order to be
completely familiar with the specific Service Levels within the District.
Review existing method of spread to address staff concerns and to ensure equity
throughout the District.
Hold public meeting workshops prior to any public hearings to discuss the District
services, budgets, and any concerns generated by property owners in order to
alleviate any negative misconceptions, if so desired by City.
Be available as needed throughout the year to meet with City staff or property owners
to discuss district administration, budgeting, method of fee application, levy, or other
related topic at the discretion of the City.
Coordinate with the County of Riverside to obtain all necessary information, i.e.
latest secured roll, APN maps, etc. (See Fee Schedule, Special Projects).
Coordinate with City staff to obtain all necessary information, i.e.; boundary maps,
budget information, District reports, special circumstances on particular parcel levy
dam, etc.
Prepaxe Preliminaxy Report (1 unbound copy) for review by staff which will include
but not be limited to: method of spread; explanation of caicuhtions; District budget
background information; description of the District and Service Level; listing of
preliminary assessment by Service Level; tables showing the number of parcels per
Service Level along with their anticipated assessment land use code, etc.; description
of District services; District Boundary Diagram(s) (provided by City); sample
formula and calculations for each land use type; explanation of any special
calcuhtions required etc.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Provide computer print out to staff listing the "Noticed" levy amours for each
assessors parcel number; acreages; land use codes; CSD Service Levels; number of
dwelling units; EDU values; sirs address; owner information; along with a definition
of each field provided in the print out.
After staff has reviewed the Preliminary Report, modify the Report or provide
additional comparison scenarios as directed by staff.
Prepare a sample assessment for each parcel and submit to City for review. City to
provide notice of public hearing that wffi be mailed with approved assessment mount
to each parcel. Notice to include the date, time and phce of the hearing, description
of the District and services, parcel number, owner information, assessment amount
per parcel, applicable levels of service, etc.
After corrections or changes have been made, prepare Final Report (one unbound
copy) and accompanying print oR listing "Applied" levy amours, EDU's, parcel
listing, assessments, etc. Also provide the applied levy database to the City on a
computer disk compatible with the City computer sysRra.
Prepare a magnetic tape and submit to the County to be used for entering individual
parcel levy amounts onto the tax bills.
File the Collection Tape and Enabling Resolution with the County.
Upon receipt of a parcel exceptions list from the County, revise parcel numbers and
report the remaining levy mounts to the County Assessor' s Office.
Make all necessary adjustmeRs for annexations into the District upon notification by
the City. A revised Boundary Diagram can be p~tred for an additional fee.
Attend all council meetings, public hearings, etc. as requested by staff.
Maintain communication with City staff regarding regnlatoty changes which may
affect the District(s) and current administration procedures.
Provide continual administrative consulting to the City as needed.
MFS to conduct field verification for changes in parcel use.
EX/IIBITB
PAY'MF, NT SCHEDULE
The following fLxed fees and schedule are proposed to accomplish the scope of services as set
forth in Section 3 and 9 of the Agreement:
Month Amount
July $4,500.00
October $4,500.00
January $4,500.00
April $4,500.00
TOTAL: $18,000.00
The cost of all items incidental to the performance of the engineering services that are not
otherwise discussed in this proposal are included in the charges, and no additional charges
will be made thereof.
The charges for authorized services outside the Scope of Services will be based on MFS's
hourly rate schedule which are in effect at the time the services are rendered.
Hou~yRate
Director $125.00
Associate 85.00
Senior Associate 65.00
Data Entry 40.00
Support Staff 35.00
The cost of printing, reproduction, and other "out of pocket" expenses where provided by
consultant shall be Reimbursed to consultant at consultant's direct cost, said amounts not to
exceed $750.00 based on the then current hourly rate. Expenses not included in the above
production, postage and mailing of brochures, newsletters, notices, etc. These additional
costs will be billed to the City at cost and are not part of the not-to-exceed amount.
Proposal Assumptions
The following are the approximate number of parcels and districts the proposed fees are
based upon. If the actual number varies substantially it may cause a change in our fee
structure.
The District currently consists of approximately 15,000 parcels (actual
assessable approximately 14,654).
The District curren~y consists of 6 distinct Service Levels.
The City will provide consultant with plats and legal descriptions for any
annexations that effect the City Boundary.
The City will provide Tract and APN identification for any new slope areas to
be maintained in Service Levels C1, C2, C3 and C4 for Fiscal Year 1994/95.
Abandonment
In the event that this project is abandoned prior to its completion, the Agency will pay MFS
a fee equal to the reasonable value of its services. Reasonable value shah be determined by
using the then current hourly rates for our services or the percentage completion of the
project, whichever is lowest.
The project may be abandoned at any time by the Agency. MFS may cancel its obligation
under this Agreement by providing thirty (30) days notice in writing to the Agency.
In the event of litigation or arbitration between the parties over the terms or performance of
this agreement, the prevailing party shah be enti~ed to reasonable attorney' s fees and costs.
Payment
Payment for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be made within thirty
(30) days of the submittal of an MFS invoice. MFS invoices for the creation, distribution,
collection and follow-up of the tax installments shah be based upon the pro-rated percentage
of the project as described in Attachment "A ". Invoices shall be submitted to the Agency on
a monthly basis.
In the event of abandonment, the payment will be due within thirty (30) days of the receipt
of an invoice.
ITEM 4
APPRO~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY: ~
RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Ronald E. Bradley, General Manager
June 28, 1994
Release of Bond for Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park
eryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant
That the Board of Directors:
Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond for the construction of Kent Hintergardt
Memorial Park.
BACKGROUND: On May 11, 1993, the Board of Directors entered into a
Parkland/Landscape Agreement with:
The Presley Companies of San Diego
15090 Avenue of Science #201
San Diego, CA 92128
for the construction of Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park, a 9.2 acre public park facility located
at 31465 Via Cordoba. Upon receiving clear title to the property, the park was officially
dedicated to the City on January 24, 1994. On January 25, 1994, the Faithful Performance
Bond was exonerated by the Board of Directors. The remaining surety bonds, issued by The
American Insurance Company, are identified as follows:
1. Labor and Materials Bond No. 111 19257738, in the amount of ~126,120.
2. Park Land Warranty Bond No. 111 1925 7738-M, in amount of ~25,224.
Pursuant to the Park Land/Landscape Agreement, the Labor and Materials Bond shall be
released six months after the completion and acceptance of the park, pending the settlement
of any claims or obligations by the developer. Subsequently, the City Clerk has verified that
no claims have been filed by persons providing labor or materials for the construction of Kent
Hintergardt Memorial Park.
Therefore, staff is recommending a total exoneration of the Labor and Materials Bond for this
facility. The remaining Warranty Bond shall be retained for a period of one year and until any
claims filed during the warranty period have been settled.
r:\yesinobk\ced,khb 062894
FISCAL IMPACT:
Materials Bond.
No fiscal impact is anticipated from the release of the Labor and
ATFACHMENTS:
Park Land/Landscape Improvement Agreement
Surety Bonds
Staff Report dated 1/25/94
r:%yasinobk\csd.khb 062894
CITY OF T]LVfECULA
PARICLAND / LANDSCAPE EVfPROVITvU~NT AGREENIEYT
DATE OF AG~A'MiF_,NT:
April 12, 1993
NAlVEE OF SUBDrVIDIEP,: The Presley Companies
(R~f,'rrexi to as "SUBDIVIDER")
NA1Vi~ OF SUBDIVISION:
fRd~rmd to as "SUBDIVIDER")
TRACT NO.: 23267 and. 26861
-l .h~,rrATr'v~ ~ RESOLUTION
OF APPROVAL NO.:
Cl~ef,'rr~d to as "Resoludon of Approval")
PARKLAND INIPROVENIENT PLANS NO.:
fRcferfed to as "Resolution of Approval")
F_.STII',,4A-L6D TOTAL COST OF PARKLAND I1VIPROVENIF_NTS: S 252,240.00
COlrEPLETION DATE: June 30, 1993
NAME OF SURETY A3N'DBONDNO. FOR LABORANDlv~ATERIA.LSBOND:
The American Insurance Co. - 111 1925 7738
NANliE OF SLrKETY AND BOND NO. FOR FAITHFLFL PER~OR/~IANCE BOND:
The American Insurance Co. - 111 1925 7738
NAiVEE OF SIFR.F. TY AiN'D BOND NO. FOR WA.RR.A.NrFY BOBrID:
The American Insurance Co. - 111 1925 7738-M
and approved by the City Attorney. The term "Parkland" includes landscape areas intended to
be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District.
E. CompleteParldand/LandscapeImprovementPlansfortheconstruction, installation
and completion of the Parkland Improvements have been prepared by SUBDIVIDE and
approved by the Director of Community Services. The Parkland Improvement Plans numbered
as referenced previously in this Agreement are on file in the Office of the DiZector of
Community Services and m incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. All references
. in this Agreement to the Parkland Improvement Plans shall include reference to any
specifications for the Improvements as approved by the Director of Community Services.
F. An estimate of the cost for construction of the Parkland Improvements according
to the improvement Plans has been made and approved by the Dizector of Community Services.
The estimated amount is stated on Page 1 of this Agreement. The basis for the estimate is
attached as Exhibit "A" to this Agreement.
G. The CITY has adopted standards for the construction and installation of
Parkland/Landscape improvements within the CITY. The Parkland/Landscape Improvement
Plans have been prepared in conformance with the CITY standards, (in effect on the date of
approval of the Resolution of Approval).
H. SUBDIVIDE recognizes that by approval of the final map for SUBDIVISION,
CITY has confen-ed substantial fights upon SUBDIVIDE, including the fight to sell, lease, or
finance lots within the SUBDM SION, and has taken the final act necessary to subdivide the
property within the SUBDMSION. As a result, CITY will be damaged to the extent of the cost
of ;nstallation of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements by .qUBDIVIDF~'~'S failure to pex-form
its obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, SUBD.~VIDER'S obligation
to complete construction of Parkland/Landscape Improvements by the Completion Date. CI'I'Y
encumbrances for the SUBDIVIDER'S obligations with regard to acquisition by
CITY of off-site rights-of-way, easements and other interests in real property
shah be subject to a separate A~eemcnt between SUBDIVIDER and CITY.
2. Acquisition and Dedication. of Easements or Rights-of-Way.. If any of the
Park/and/Landscape Improvements and land development work contemplated by this Agreement
are to be constructed or installed on land not owned by SUBDIVIDIi~., no construction or
installation shall be commenced before:
a. The offer of dedication to t.:n'x/or appropriate rights-of-way,
easements or other interest in xr. al property, and appropriate authorization from
the prope.rty owner to allow construction or installation of the Improvements or
work, or
b. The dedication to, and acceptance by, the CITY of appropriate
fights-of-way, easements or other interests in real property, and approved by the
Department of Public Works, as determined by the Director of Community
Services.
C.
The issuance by a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the
State Eminent Domain Law of an order of possession. SUBDIVIDER shall
comply in all respects with order of possession.
Nothing in this Section 2 shall be construed as authorizing or granting an extension of time to
SUBDIVIDER.
3. Security. SUBDIVIDER shall at all times guarantee SUBDIVllDER'S
performance of this Agreement by furuishh'ag to CITY, and maintaining, good and sufficient
security as requixed by the Subdivision Laws on forms approved by CITY for the purposes and
in the amounts as follows:
improvement, SUBDIVIDER shall provide improvement security for faithful
performance as required by Paragraph 3 of this Agreement for 100% of the total
estimated cost of the improvement as changed, altered, or amended, minus any
completed partial releases allowed by Paragraph 6 of this Agreement.
b. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the Parkland Improvements in
accordance with the CI'I'Y' Standards in effect at the time of adoption of the
Resolution of Approval. CITY reserves the right to modify the standards
applicable to the SUBDM SION and this Agreement, when necessary to protect
the public health, safety or welfare or comply with applicable State or federal law
or CITY. zoning ordinances. If SUBDIVIDER requests and is granted an
extension of time for completion of the improvements, Crr~' may apply the
standards in effect at the time of the extension.
5. Inspection and Maintenance Period.
a. SUBDIVIDER shall obtain City inspection of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements in accordance with the City standards in effect
at the time of adoption of the Resolution of Approval. SUBDIVIDER shall at all
times maintain proper facilities and safe access for inspection of the Parkland
Improvements by CITY inspectors and to the shops wherein a.ny work is in
preparation. Upon completion of the work the SUBDIVIDER may request a
f'mal inspection by the Director of Community Services, or the Director of
Community Service's authorized representative. If the Director of Community
Services, or the designated representative, determine that the work i~as been
completed in accordance with this Agreement, then the Director of Community
acceptance of the improvement work. In no event shah the Director of
Community Services authorize a release of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement
Security which would reduce such security to an mount below that required to
guarantee the completion of the improvement work and any other obligation
imposed by this Agreement.
c. Security. given to secure payment to the contractor, his or her
subcontractors and to persons furnishing labor, materials or equipment shall, six
months after the completion and acceptance of the work, be reduced to an amount
equal to the total claimed by all claimants for whom Hen have been fried and of
which notice has been given to the legislative body, plus an mount reasonably
determined by the Director of Community Services to be required to assure the
performance of any other obligations secured by the Security. The balance of the
security shall be released upon the settlement of all claims and obligations for
which the security was given.
d. No security given for the guarantee or warranty of work shall be
released until the expiration of the warranty period and until any claims filed
during the warranty period have been settled. As provided in paragraph 10, the
warranty period shall not commence 'until final acceptance of all work and
improvements by the City Council.
e. The CITY may retain from any security released, and amount
sufficient to cover costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including r~sonable
attorneys' fees.
thereof, or any conveyance in lieu or in avoidance of foreclosure; or
SU'BDF~i:DER's failure to perform any other obligation under this Agreement.
b. The CITY reserves to itself all remedies available to it at law or
in equity for breach of SU'BD/VIDER's obligations under this Agreement. The
CITY shall have the right, subject to this setion, to draw upon or utilize the
appropriate s~curity to mitigate C1TY ~mages in event of default by
SL~BDIVEDER. The right of Cr'fY to draw upon or ufili~ the security is
additiona/to and not in lieu of any other r~medy available to CFfY. It is
specifically recognized that the estimated costs and security amounts may not
reflect the actuai cost of construction or instal/ation of Park/and/Landscape
Improvements and, therefore, Cl'l':/damages for SUBDI'VIDER'S default shah
be measurecl by the cost of completing the required improvements. The sums
provided by the improvement security may be used by CITY for the completion
of the Park/and/Landscape Improvements in accordance with the
Park/and/Landscape Improvement Plans and specifications contained herein.
In the event of SUBD/VIDER'S default under this Agreement, SUBDIV'IZDF~R
authorizes CITY to perform such obligation twenty days after mailing written
notice of default to SUBDIVFDER and to SLrBDIVIDER'S Surety, and agrees to
pay the entire cost of such performance by CITY.
CITY may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract
or by any other method C1TY may deem advisable, for the account and af the
expense of SUBD/V/DER, and S'C.~BDiW]ZDER'S Surety shall be liable to C]~TY
for any excess cost or damages occasioned CITY thereby; and, in such event,
CITY, without liab~ty for so doing, may take_possession of, and utilize in
caused to be done, furnished, installed or constructed by SUBDIVIDER fails to fuLFdl any of the
requirements of this Agreement or the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Plans and specifications
referred to herein, SUBDIVIDER shall without delay and without any cost to CITY, ,~pah- or
replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory pan or pans of the work or
structure. Should SUBDIVIDER fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement,
SUBDIVIDER heroby authorizes CITY, at CITY option, to perform the work twenty days after
mailing written notice of default to SUBDIVIDER and to SUBDIVIDER's Surety and agrees to
pay the cost of such work by CITY. Should CITY determine that an urgency requires repairs
or replacements to be made before SUBDIVIDER can be notified, CITY may, in its sole
discretion, make the ne~.essary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work and
SUBDIVIDER shall pay to CITY the cost of such repairs.
11. SUBDIVIDER Not Agent of CITY. Neither SUBDI'v'IDER nor any of
SUBDIVIDER'S agents or contractors are or shah be considered to be agents of CITY' in
connection with the performance of SUBDIVIDER'S obligations under this Agreement.
12. Injury to Work. Until such time as the Parkland/Landscape Improvements
are accepted by CITY, SUBDIVIDER shall be responsible for and bear the risk of loss to any
of the improvements constructed or installed. CITY shall not, nor shall any officer or employee
thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening
or occurring to the work or improvements specified in this Agreement prior to the completion
and acceptance of the work or improvements. All such risks shah be the responsibility of and
are hereby assumed by SUBDIVIDER.
13. Other AEreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude CITY
from expending monies pursuant to agreements concurrently or previously executed between the
parties, or from entering into agreement with other subdividers for the apportionment of costs
in whole or in pan, the design or construction of the Parkand/Landscape Improvements. This
indemnification and Agreement to hold harmless shall extend to injuries to persons and damages
or taking of property resulting from the design or construction of the larkand/Landscape
improvements as provided herein, and in addition, to adjacent property owners as a consequence
of the diversion of waters from the design or construction of public drainage systems, streets and
other public improvements. Acceptance of any of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements shall
not constitute any assumption by the ul'i'x' of any responsibility for any damage or taking
..covered by this paragraph. CITY shall not be responsible for the design or construction of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements pursuant to the approved Paxkland/Landscape Improvement
Plans, regardless of any .negligent action or inaction taken by the CITY in approving the plans,
unless the particular improvement design was specifically required by CITY over written
objection by SUBDIVIDER submitted to the Director of Community Services before approval
of the particular improvement design, which objection indicated that the particular improvement
design was dangerous or defective and suggested an alternative safe and feasible design. After
acceptance of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements, the SUBDIVIDER shall remain obligated
to eliminate any defect in design or dangerous condition caused by the design or construction
defect, however, SUBDIVIDER shall not be responsible for routine maintenance. Provisions
of this paragraph shall remain in full force and effect for ten years following the acceptance by
the CH'T of Parkla.nd/Landscape Improvements. It is the intent of this section that
SU'BDIVIDER shall be responsible for all liability for design and construction of the
Par"kland/Landscape Improvements installed or work done puBuant to this A~-n'e, ement and that
CIT"x' shall not be liable for any negligence, nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in
approving, reviewing, thee'king, or correcting any plans or specifications or in approving,
reviewing or inspecting any work or construction. The improvement security shall not be
an extension of time for completion. As a condition of such extension, the Director of
Community Services may require SUBDIVIDER to furnish new security guaranteeing
performance of this Agreement as extended in an increased amount as necessary to compensate
for any increase in construction costs as determined by the Director of Community Services.
21. No Vestin~ of Ri~,hts. Performance by SUBDIVIDER of this Agreement
shall not be construed to vest SUBDIVIDER'S fights with respect to any change in any change
in any zoning or building law or ordinance.
22. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be
in writing and delivered in person or sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided
in this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in person, or, ff mailed, on
the date of deposit in the United States Marl. Notices shall be addressed as follows unless a
written change of address is fried with the City:
Notice to CITY:
City Clerk
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
Notice to SUBDM DER:
The Presley Companies
15090 Avenue of Science #201
San Diego, CA 92128
Ann: Project Manager
23. Severability. The provisions of this A~reement are severable. If any portion of
this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
Agreement shall remain in full force mid effect unless amended or modified by the mutual
consent of the panics.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this A_~rccm,nt is cxccutcd by CITY, by and through its Mayor.
Tb.e Presley .Cc~panies
SUBDIVIDER
Name:
Titl~:
By: ,
Name: ld P. Nordenan
Tide: Senior Vice President
Vice President
CITY OF TEMECLrLA
By:
Mayor
....... i(..~.....qper.~otar/z~.~.o.n-~of.S.UBDIVIDER,S si~amrc
E OF CALIFORNIA
TY OF SAN DIEGO
v-/'--/c::2 _~.,~2 . before me. Nanc? J. Webb. a Notary
in and lor sa~d State. personally appeared Gerald P. Nordemon and John
bors. Jr., personoily known to me (or proyea on the Dasls of ~aastactory
TNESS THE REOF. I have hereunto Set my h~nd ant affixed my officm~ seal.
Sale Ccunty and State. the ciay aria year first adore wn~en,
FOR NOTARIAL STAMP
oremission expires ~j3/94 ~/
APPROVED AS 'A U rvr, A,~.
By: ~
Scon F. Field
CiW. Artomcy
, .,:slcy of San Diego
Vafwood Ncighborhoo<i Park
April ~ 1993
Page Two
ITEM QTY. UNIT
TOTAL
Remote control valve 17 HA
I-1/T
Pressure reducing valve I EA
Quick coupler valve 5 F..A
Valve box~ 45 EA.
. PVC CL 315 ~'~'nl'Fne 2,450 LF
2-1/2'
PVC CL 3~5 11/2" 540 I.~
PVC SCH 40 lateral line 4,470 LF
· ¢C SCH 40 hteral line 5,380 LF
3/4'
PVC SCH 40 lateral l~.e 4,430 LF
PVC SCH 40 lateral ~ 1,740. LF
1-1/4"
PVC SCH 40 hteral Iiue 695 LF
1ol/2'
I'VC SC.H 40 lateral line 940 LF
.
PVC SCH 40 lateral Line · 260 LF
2-1/2"
Trenc_hingJbac¥'Hll 17,910 LF
L2' deep
'1'Yenehing/baek-'Hll 2,990 LF
lg* deep
Con',~ol w/xing 7~?00 LF
Sub-total
PLANTIZNG
_Soft prep./fine grade 423,140 SF
'ydroseeded turf 260,000 SF
f, ooted groundcover 109,420 SF
Hydroseed groundc~ver 53,720 SF
350.00
350.00
55.00
19.00
2.75
230
,28
.42
.48
.62
30
.08
5,950.OO
350.00
28O.O0
860.00
6,740.OO
L35o.oo
980.00
L500.O0
5oo.oo
730.OO
330.00
5gO.GO
33O.00
5,370.OO
.08 33,850.00
.04 10,400.00
10 - 21,880.00
.04 2,150.00
s 7 1o.oo
eo0'39ud 3NIA~I NUlaI~3d WOH~ Ll:lI 8G. ~ ~'~
CI~, OF
P.MIELaND/LANDSCA,~E LABOR AND MA'l'~...,a~-~ ~OND
Bond #111 1925 7738
Premium included in Performance
bond
'W'/--r'~RE~.S. the Cit'/of Tem~ula. Sm~,. of California, ~.nc~ TEE PRESLEY COMPANIES
: (h.cr~ir~ft:r design~,md ~ "Principal') have en:er~d into an Agr""ment 'whereby
Prb'.cipal z..gr-_e.s :o inslull and compl~"~:¢ c~..-m.in P"'-_r~and Improvement, '~hich said
dared April 12~, 19 93 , and icien:if~.-..d as Projc,~ TR ~123267 and 26861
tS h~r'.b.',' mferr:~ to ~nd made ', pa-~ ]aemof; and
WIa"~__m. EAS, under ~he :ermi of s.~id Agre..~m,'nE, P.'-incipa/Ls mqui..md before
upon m= p-..rformanc.~ of ~hc work, m f'Ll: ~. good and sufficisn: payme~ bond ~'r~h the Ci~, of
Tem~cub., :o i,'cum th~ c. laims ro which r=f=mnc: is made in Tk[e 1~ (comn~cncing v,'kh 5=cUnn
30~2) of PZLr~ ~. of Division 3 Of th~ Civil Code of :he S:a;e of CalLforrLia; and
THE AMERICAN INSURANCE held
NOVa', TiEOR.E, w~ the principal and co.,~'~NY ~s -~umD',are
and i."n'fiy bound umo th~ City of Tem~cLtla, C.-difornia, and ~.11 conL-mc..:orL subcontrac:on,
l~-Dorc.-~, ma::.-,~lrn.en, ?tnd o:her p.=rsom empley=d in :ho pedormancs of lhe afoms~d
Agrs~-zsn~ and ref,'rr,~d ~o in Tifie 15 of me Civil Cod-.,, in ~l'~ p:n~.i suu'~ of S126, 120. ,0(Paw-f'ul
money of :us Urnled SLz,.~a. ,"or m--,[eria/-: i, rnish:d or b. bor rher,e~n of any 'ld.nd, or for amounts
due uz~,r :he Un,,mploym'_.n~ .In,~urn_nce A~': '~,irh re~ec',:. :0 such '~'ork or laDor, fi'm~ SureIy will
pay :~'. s--__m,', in an arncur,~ na exc~.eding ',.he a.moun~ see forth.
As a pa.n of rILe obli~a~on s:cur'-..d her=by and i?. addiUon to Eke re. ca :z.noun[
lherefcr. r. izer~ shall be inc~ud=d costs and masonable exp,.nsas ~n.d f"~, i~cluding r~".sonable
zr:.orn-_F's f~,e.e~s. incurr-,.~i by City in succz.ssfully ~r~cn:ing ~uch oOEg~.:ion, ai! m be taxed
STJ'R.~i f THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
VICTORIA M. CAMPBELL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
Certificate of Acknowledgemerit
PREqCIPAL
By:
TftE PRESLEY COMPANIES
I;TATE OF CALIFORNiA
County of C~="C=
On April 8,
pe.~onally appeared
1993 before me. Kat,bleen Viodes, Notary Public
Victoria M. Camobell
pemon~11:,' Known co me ~ ~ - to be the pomona) whose n~rne~) LV~R subscnbea to me
w~thm instrument ano acxnowledged to ~ tha~sh~ ~ecutea me ~e m ~her/~ aumome~ cap~s~ ~d that by
E'her/:~ slgnature~ ~ on the ms~ent the oe~ona) or the entt~ upon beh~ of which the penom.~ actM. execut~ the ~t~ment.
/ ',;'[TNESS my nana an,, officml seal.
onlpri 1 9, 1 qq~
.Oelore me, [he undersigned. a Notary PuOhc In and for
Premium included in
Per~o~ance bond
improvements. w~h a~d A~mcn;, ~ April 12, 19 93 ~d iden~
Project TR ~23267 & 26861 , is h:~by refe~ed to ~d mad~ z p~ her:of; ~d
~}'=EAS, P~cip~ is mqu~d [o w~ty the ~'ork don: undcr rhc (c~s of the
Agm:m:nt for = peffod of on= (i) y~ fo~owing ~c=~nc: ~h:rcof by Cky aghast
(]05) of the eszjmz(ed:cost of the
TEE ~RIC~ INS~CE
NO~. ~rO~, we th: ~cipll ~d CO~ ~ SU~zy, ~ held
~d f~ly bound unto the Ci[y of Tcm~uh. CaliFornia, in ~hc pcn~ sum of S 25,22~. 00
h~'~l[ monc~' of the United States, for ~hc payrnc=[ of such sum ~]] ~nd ~[y to bc made, wc
bind ourss!v~n. our hc=s. succc~son, exscutom and ad~n~sulrors. johKly m~d severally.
condition or' ti~s obUEtuon is suc~, that C~c ob~1[mn sh~ becorn: nuD ~d void if th=
bound:d P~mc{p~. i~ or its hairs, exccmors. ad~ullors. succ=sso~, or Is~gns sh~l
~ngs 5~d to, abide by, well ~ ~mly k~p, ~d p~o~ m~ coven~ts, condkions, ~nd
Frovisions in :h.~ A~rc~m~n[ ad ay Mtcm~ion lhe~f maa as th:r=m provided, on t~ or thc~
p~, to hc k~[ ad peffo~ al th: :~e ~d ~ me m~cr there~ SD~ed and in
~sp~:s according to his or th~ ~e intent ~d m~ng, ~d ~h~ mdem~7 ~ rove
the Ck~' of Temecu~, its of~cc~, ag~n~, ~d cmDloy~s as th:~L~ ~tipul~:cd; othe~zi~,
SUR,FfY
Certificate of Acknowiedgemen~
pELNCIPAL
TEE pRESLEY COMPANIES
.By:
STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
Counvy of
0n April
peI'sonady appeared
1993
b~on me. Kath3.een Viodes, Notary Public
Victoria M. Camvbell
; "sonaljy known co me ( ' ' ' =o be me peson~) whose name~) m subscribed to the
· .'. ~hin lnstrumen~ aria acKnow tedged to me ma~v~',sheZG(~ executed ~he same in YiM/~erllti]t aumor~zed capaclvfN~s~ and tha~ by
· ~,her/mwh' slgnscurel ~ on me ins~en~ the peaone), or ~e en~ upon ~h~ of which the pe~on(~ ac~ed, ex~u~ me
':,'~' 3 my hand and of~aai seat,
A.Tn3KNEY TI-IE AMERICA~ INSURANCE 'COM'PA. NY
--VICTORL~ .~. CA~?BrT-T
ts~ ~yof june 1~ 90 ,
T]4~ AMEKICAN I'NSUR. A.NCE COMPAHY
i e J' ~' YANDEVOIL'T
~OTARY PUBLIC-CALiFORNIA
L.u~Lu. sCATE
8=h ~a oc April 93
Y t9 ,
APPROVAL
CITY ATFORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the release
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
David F. Dixon, General Manager
January 25, 1994
Release of Bond for Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park
~,Fu~Beryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant That the Board of Directors:
of the Parkland/Landscape Faithful Performance Bond for the
construction of Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park.
BACKGROUND: On May 11, 1993, the Board of Directors entered into a
Parkland/Landscape Agreement with:
The Presley Companies of San Diego
15090 Avenue of Science #201
San Diego, CA 92128
for tile construction of a 9.2 acre neighborhood park within Tract No. 23267-2, currently
kno, ;n as Kent Hintergardt Memorial Perk. Accompanying the parkland agreement were
surety bonds issued by The American Insurance Company, as follows:
1. Faithful Performance Bond No. 111 1925 7738, in the amount of $252,240.
2. Labor and Materials Bond No. 111 1925 7738, in the amount of $126,120.
3. Parkland Warranty Bond No. 111 1925 7738-M, in the amount of $25,224.
On October 26, 1993, the Board of Directors accepted the grant deed for Kent Hintergardt
[vlemorisl Park. Upon receiving clear title to the park property, the TCSD assumed the
maintensnce of this facility on January 3, 1994. The park has been constructed per the
approved plans and inspected end approved by the City's Maintenance Superintendent.
Therefore, staff is recommending a total exoneration of the Faithful Performance Bond for this
facility. The Warranty Bond, in the amount of ten percent of the Faithful Performance Bond,
shall be retained for a period of one year and until any claims filed during the warranty period
have been settled.
yasinobk~kh.b~r 122993
Pursuant to the Parkland/Landscape Agreement, the Labor and Materials Bond shall be
retained for an additional six months to allow for the settlement of all claims and obligations
concerning those persons furnishing labor and materials for this project.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact is anticipated from the release of the
Parkland/Landscape Faithful Performance Bond.
ATTACHMENTS:
· Vicinity Map
Parkland/Landscape Improvement Agreement
Surety Bonds
yasin0bk\kh.bdr 122993
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
APPRO~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
Ronald Bradley, General Manager
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJECT: Departmental Report
PREPARED BY: ~_,~hawn D. Nelson, Director of Community Services
DISCUSSION: The bronze plaque is now ordered for the installation of a memorial for
Officer Kent Hintergardt, which will be placed at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. It will take
approximately 4 to 6 weeks to receive the plaque. Once received, staff will move forward
with the installation.
The Community Recreation Center (CRC) Pool is now open and has been greatly utilized by
the community. Currently, approximately 100 people have signed up for swim lessons and
open swimming should be extremely successful with the new water slide at the pool. Many
recreation classes, sports programs, and drop-in recreation programs are also being offered
at the CRC as well.
Staff is moving forward with the Loma Linda Park Project - Phase II. The Board awarded the
contract for construction on June 14, 1994. It is anticipated that construction will begin
within 30 days.
Staff is currently working on potential construction options concerning the Pala Community
Park Project. This item will be considered by the Board of Directors on June 28, 1994.
Staff has completed interviews for day camp staff to provide summer recreation programs and
activities. in addition, a summer concert schedule for the outdoor amphitheater is being
prepared by the Recreation Division.
Staff is proceeding with the restroom facility at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. The
architect's design is completed, and it is anticipated that a public bid for construction will be
released by the end of June, 1994.
Construction is currently ongoing concerning the Rancho California Sports Park Slope Repair
Project. This project will provide slope and channel improvements that will create the main
infrastructure for the Sports Park Improvement Project. This project is expected to be
completed by the end of July, 1994.
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD JUNE 14, 1994
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 9:04 PM.
PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mur~oz, Roberrs, Parks,
Stone
ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsell
Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, General Counsel Peter Thorson and
Agency Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
AGENCY BUSINESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Agency Member Roberrs, seconded by Agency Member Mufioz to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
1.1 Approve the minutes of May 10, 1994;
1.2 Approve the minutes of May 24, 1994.
Agency Member Stone stated he would abstain on 1.1 since he was not present at that
meeting.
The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Birdsall absent and Agency
Member Stone abstaining on recommendation 1.1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. International Rectifier Owner Participation Agreement
Executive Director Ronald Bradley presented the staff report. He introduced Mike
Magee, Vice President of Finance and lan Warbrick, Vice President of Fab to give a
presentation.
Mr. Magee presented a report describing International Rectifier Products. After his
presentation Mr. Warbrook explained expansion plans and future projections.
Finance Officer Mary Jane McLarney gave a perspective on International Rectifier and
explained the value of this company to the community. She explained the cooperative
Temecula Redevelopment AEeney Minut~ June 14. 1994
effort through City, County and State agencies to put this agreement together.
Executive Director Bradley summarized the report and outlined the provisions of the
Owner Participation Agreement.
Chairman Parks opened the public hearing at 9:21 PM. Hearing no requests to speak,
he closed the public hearing at 9:21 PM.
Mayor Roberts reconvened the City Council Meeting in joint session with the
Redevelopment Agency at 9:23 PM.
After City Council Action on the Owner Participation Agreement, it was moved by
Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Muffoz to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 94-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AND INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Birdsall absent.
Authorize ConsultinQ Contracts with Wimberlee. Allison, TOnQ & Goo and Barton
Aschman
Executive Director Ronald Bradley presented the staff report.
General Counsel Peter Thorson announced that since this decision only involves
consultant contracts, both Agency Member Stone and Agency Member Mu~oz may
participate.
It was moved by Agency Member Muf~oz, seconded by Agency Member Stone to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
3.1
Authorize the Chairperson to execute an agreement with Wimberly Allison Tong
& Goo for architectural and planning services not to exceed $54,620 and with
Barton-Aschman for traffic impact analysis not to exceed $34,000.
'Agreements will be subject to approval of the Executive Director and General
Counsel as to final form.
The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Birdsall absent.
Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes June 14. 1994
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Bradley commended the Agency Members for being far-sighted and
visionary with regard to the International Rectifier Agreement.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Roberrs, seconded by Agency Member Stone to adjourn at
9:32 PM to a meeting on June 28, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho
Vista Road, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member
Birdsall absent.
Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
ITEM 2
APPROVAL ~ '
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Redevelopment Agency/Executive Director
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
June 28, 1994
Review and Approval of the Fiscal Year 1994-95 Budget
PREPARED BY: Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 FOR THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS.
DISCUSSION: The Temecula Redevelopment Agency (RDA) consists of three funds, the
Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund; the Capital Projects (CIP) Fund, and the Debt Service
Fund.
LOW/MOD SET-ASIDE FUND
The revenue projection of $1,565,095, reflects a 5% increase in tax increment revenue.
Expenditures are estimated at $114,262. Although current year expenditures are budgeted
at $405,000, actual year-to-date expenditures are significantly lower because the RDA
housing plan has not yet been adopted. Appropriations for FY 1994-95 include a portion of
a Senior Planner's time as well as appropriations for project feasibility studies.
CIP FUND
The operating and capital improvement project appropriations in this fund have been
separated. The operating portion of the budget is presented for consideration herein. The
capital improvement project appropriations will be addressed at a later date in the Capital
Improvement Program document.
Revenue to this fund for operating purposes consists of investment income and rental
revenues from the Honda property. The revenue projection of $396,300, reflects a 5%
decrease compared to FY 1993-94. The decrease is primarily attributable to the anticipated
draw down on the balance of bond proceeds as they are used for projects during the year.
The estimated expenditures of $600,775, refiect a decrease over current year appropriations.
The reductions include a transfer of a portion of personnel costs to the Low/Mod Set Aside
Fund, as well as a reduction in expenditures for economic development.
DEBT SERVICE FUND
The revenue projection of $5,809,579, reflects a 5% increase in tax increment revenue.
Expenditures are estimated at $4,672,968. One of the significant changes in this budget is
the inclusion of an appropriation for County Property Tax Administration Fees.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Low/Mod Set Aside Fund is projected to have a fund balance of $6,123,261 at June 30,
1995, an increase of $1,450,833,in the fund balance. The CIP Fund is projected to have a
fund balance of $14,547,508,before consideration of capital projects. The Debt Service Fund
is projected to have a fund balance of $7,570,969, an increase of $1,136,611, over the
current year.
Attachments: Resolution
Schedules A through C:
-Low/Mod Set Aside Fund
-CIP Fund
-Debt Service Fund
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE. ANNUAL
OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-9~ FOR
~ TEMECULA RI~.DEVELO PMF~NT AGENCY FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors have reviewed
the proposed final Operating Budget for fiscal year 1994-95, and
NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Temecula Redevelopment Agency
as follows:
Section 1. That the following controls are hereby placed on the use and transfers of
budget appropriations:
A. No expenditure of funds shall be made unless there is an unencumbered appropriation
available to cover the expenditure.
B. The Department Director may prepare a transfer of appropriations within
departmental budget accounts up to $10,000 per transfer, with the approval of the City Manager.
C. The City Manager may authorize expenditures of funds in mounts up top $10,000.
Any expenditure of funds in excess of $10,000 requires City Council action.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 281h day of June, 1994.
ATTEST:
Ron Parks, Chairperson
June S. Greek, Board Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HERI=.RY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Temecula Redevelopmerit Agency at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 28th
day of June, 1994, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
NOES:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS:
June S. Greek, Board Secretary
Revenue
Expenditures
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures
Operating Transfers
Increase (decrease) in Fund Balance
Fund Balance, July 1, 1993
Est. Fund Balance, June 30, 1994
Fund Balance, June 30, 1995
I
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
FUND SUMMARY
FY 93-94
CURRENT
BUDGE
FY 93-94
YTD
05/24/94
1,492,809
10,420
1,482,389
1,522,200 $
405,000
1,117,200
1,117,200
3,555,228
4,672,428
1,482,389
SCHEDULE A
FY 94-95
PROPOSED
BUDGET
$ 1,565,095
114,262
1,450,833
1,450,833
$ 4,672,428
$ 6,123,261
28-June-94
Revenue
Expenditures
~xcess of Revenues Over Expenditures
Operating Transfers In
Increase (decrease) in Fund Balance
Fund Balance, duly 1, 1993
Est. Fund Balance, dune 30, 1994
Est. Fund Balance, dune :30, 1995
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CIP
FUND SUMMARY
FY 93-94 FY 93-94
CURRENT YTD
BUDGET @ 05/24/94
418,318 $ 393,651
960,765 750.264
(542,447} (356,613)
2,000,000 2,000,000
1,457,553 $ 1,643,387
13,294,430
14,751,983
SCHEDULE A
FY 94-95
PROPOSED
BUDGET
396,300
600,775
(204,475)
(204,475)
14,751,983
14,547,508
28-June-94
Revenue
Expenditures
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures
Operating Transfers (Out)
Increase (decrease) in Fund Balance
Fund Balance, July 1, 1993
Est, Fund Balance, June 30, 1994
Fund Balance, June 30, 1995
I
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DEBT SERVICE
FUND SUMMARY
FY 93-94 FY 93-94
CURRENT YTD
BUDGET @ 05/24/94
5,625,521 $ 5,598,679
4,577,849 4,544,537
1,047,672 1,054,143
2,000,000 2,000,000
3,047,672 $ 3,054,143
3,386,686
6,434,358
$
$
SCHEDULE A
FY 94.95
PROPOSED
BUDGET
5,809,579
4,672,968
1,136,611
1,136,611
6,434,358
7,570,969
28-June-94
ACCT
NO LOW/MOD SET ASIDE FUND
4015 *Tax Increment
4065 -Investment Interest
4158 -Property Tax Increment
165 TOTAL LOW/MOD SET ASIDE FUND
ACCT
NO CIP FUND
4065 -Investment Interest
4066 -Loan interest
4068 -Loan Fees
4075 -Rental Income
4090 -Operating Transfers In
4800 -Bond Proceeds
280 TOTAL CIP FUND
ACCT
NO DEBT SERVICE FUND
4015 -Tax Increment
4065 -Investment Interest
4800 -Bond Proceeds
380 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
REVENUE DETAIL
BY FUND SOURCE
FY 92-93
ACTUAL REVENUE
FY 93-94
CURRENT BUDGET
1,335,205
115,696
0
1,375,900
146,300
0
1,450,901
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CIP FUND
REVENUE DETAIL
BY FUND SOURCE
FY 92-93
ACTUAL REVENUE
FY 93-94
CURRENT BUDGET
157,399
0
0
0
25,383
15,906,080
418,318
0
0
0
2,000,000
0
16,088,862
2,418,318
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DEBT SERVICE FUND
REVENUE DETAIL
BY FUND SOURCE
FY 92-93
ACTUAL REVENUE
FY 93-94
CURRENT BUDGET
1,876,248
65,038
1,448,920
5,503,601
121,920
0
3,390,207
5,625,521
SCHEDULE B
FY 94-95
PROJECTION
1,425,095
140,000
0
1,5~,095
FY 94-~5
PROJECTION
500
140,000
0
0
FY 94-95
PROJECTION
5,7~,3~
1~,200
0
28-June-B4
ACCT ACCOUNT
NO. DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
PERSONNEL SERVICES
5100 SALARIES & WAGES
5101 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
5102 RETIREMENT
5103 STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
5104 FICA
5106 AUTO ALLOWANCE
5108 LIFE INSURANCE
5109 UNEMPLOYMENT TRAINING TAX
5110 DISABILITY INSURANCE
5112 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
5113 HEALTH INSURANCE
5114 DENTAL INSURANCE
5115 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT
5116 VISION INSURANCE
5117 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT
5118 TEMPORARY HELP
5119 PART-TIME (Project)
5120 PART-TIME RETIREMENT
5121 OVERTIME WAGES
5126 COMPENSA'I'ED ABSENCES
51 g0 LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMEN'~AGENCY
LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
DEPARTMENT 199
FY 1994-95 OPERATING BUDGET
FY93-94
CURRENT
BUDGET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCHEDULE C
FY94-1t
MANAGER
RECOMMENDED
10.506
0
1.492
0
152
0
0
494
0
442
1,176
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,262
95FY-165 28-June-~4
RDA LOW./MOD-DEPARTMENT 199
ACCT
NO.
ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
5248 CONSULTING SERVICES
5250 OTHER OUTSIDE SERVICES
5805 ACQUISITION-RANCHO WEST
TOTAL RDA LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
FY
CURRENT
BUDGET
250,000
155,000
405,000
SCHEDULE C
PAGE 2
FY 94-~5
MANAGER
RECOMMENDED
100,000
114,262
95FY-165 28-June-94
ACCT ACCOUNT
NO, DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
PERSONNEL SERVICES
5100 SALARIES & WAGES
5101 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
5102 RETIREMENT
5103 STAT~ UNEMPLOYMENT
5104 FICA
5106 ALR'O ALLOWANCE
5108 LIFE INSURANCE
5109 UNEMPLOYMENT TRAINING TAX
5110 DISABILITY INSURANCE
5112 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
5113 HEALTH INSURANCE
5114 DENTAL INSURANCE
5115 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT
5116 VISION INSURANCE
5117 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT
5118 TEMPORARY HELP
5119 PART-TIME (Project)
5120 PART-TIME RETIREMENT
5121 OVERTIME WAGES
5126 COMPENSATED ABSENCES
5190 LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CIP/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT 199
FY 1994-95 OPERATING BUDGET
FY93-94
CURRENT
BUDGET
42,355
0
6,015
0
614
0
0
1,990
0
2,584
3,528
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57,086
SCHEDULE C
FY~4-95
MANAGER
RECOMMENDED
22,593
0
3,208
0
328
0
0
1,062
0
2,352
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,494
95FY-280 28,1une-94
RDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-DEPARTMENT 199
ACCT ACCOUNT
NO. DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
5228 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS
5227 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES
5228 PUBLICATIONS
5230 POSTAGE & PACKAGING
5246 LEGAL SERVICES
5248 CONSULTING SERVICES
5250 OTHER OUTSIDE SERVICES
5258 CONFERENCES
5260 PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS
5261 STAFF 'rRAINING/EDUCATION
5264 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
5270 CITY PROMOTIONAL PROGRAM
5275 ASSESSMENTS
5276 SALES TAX REIMBURSEMENTS
5360 CITY ADMIN CHARGES
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
TOTAL RDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FY93-94
CURRENT
BUDGET
325
40.200
200
2,500
50,000
162.300
4,500
5,477
0
0
263,173
0
189,623
110,381
75,000
903.67g
960,765
SCHEDULE C
PAGE 2
FY94-95
MANAGER
RECOMMENDED
200
40.200
200
2,000
50,000
150,000
5,000
1,000
200
1,100
90,000
45,000
0
110,381
570,281
600,775
95FY-280 28-June-94
ACCT ACCOUNT
NO. DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
5227 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES
5231 PROPERTY TAX ADMIN FEES
5241 PASSTHROUGH AGREEMENTS
5245 ED. REV. AUGMENT. FUND (ERAF)
5390 DEBT SERVICE-PRINCIPAL
5391 INTEREST
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
5901 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL RDA DEBT SERVICE
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DEBT SERVICE
DEPARTMENT 199
FY 1994-95 OPERATING BUDGET
FY93-94
CURRENT
BUDGET
9,160
0
2,971,208
150,073
505,000
942,408
4,577,849
2,000,000
6,577,849
SCHEDULE C
FY94-95
MANAGER
RECOMMENDED
68,000
3,000,000
1.50,073
530,000
915,895
4,672,968
0
95FY-380 28-June-94