HomeMy WebLinkAbout021192 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 PUJOL STREET
FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - 7:00 PM
'EXECUTIVE SESSION: 6:'00 PM - Closed Session of the city.cOuncil tP be:held in:the
Conference .Room of the Teme~la Community C~nter'pursuant:to GoVernment Code
Section 54956.9(b)'and {c) to discuss potential .litigation=. " · ......
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-02
Resolution: No. 92-03
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding
Invocation
Harvester Church of Temecula, Minister Sofia Sadler
Flag Salute
Councilmember Lindemans
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation - American Cancer Society - Daffodil Days Month
Swearing-in Ceremony Public Safety Commissioner Deborah
Holliday
PUBLIC FORUM
This is a portion of the City Council meeting unique to the City of Temecula. At the
meeting held on the second Tuesday of each month, the City Council will devote a
period of time (not to exceed 30 minutes) for the purpose of providing the public with
an opportunity to discuss topics of interest with the Council. The members of the City
Council will respond to questions and may give direction to City staff. The Council is
prohibited, by the provisions of the Brown Act, from taking any official action on any
matter which is not on the agenda. If you desire to speak on any matter which is not
listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with
the City Clerk.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
21lgendl/021192 1 02/06/82
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included
in the agenda.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 28, 1992
3
Resolution AoDrovinc~ List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4
Aooroval of Service Aereement - Desic)natine Nuisance Abatement Hearing Officer
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DESIGNATING JUDICIAL ARBITRATION AND
MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. (J.A.M.$.) AS HEARING OFFICER
FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
2/egendeJ021192 2 02/06/~2
5
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for Six Months Ended December 31, 1991
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Receive and file report.
6
Fiscal Year 1991-92 Mid-Yt)ar Budqet Review
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the Mid-year Budget as set forth in Attachment "A", which the
Finance Committee has reviewed and approved.
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION N0.92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
7
Acceotance of Public Imorovements in Tract No. 23128
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23128
7.2 Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds and accept
the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts.
7.3 Approve the subdivision agreement and direct the City Clerk to so
advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Resolution Endorsina an AppliCatiOn for an Urban Streams Restoration Grant
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ENDORSING AN APPLICATION FOR AN URBAN STREAMS RESTORATION
GRANT, CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING A GRANT IF OFFERED AND
DESIGNATING CONTRACT MANAGER AND FISCAL AGENT
21allenda/021112 3 02/05/12
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before · public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences
delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
9
ChanQe of Zone 19 - Exoansion of Old Town Historic Area Boundaries
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
9.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 19 TO EXPAND THE OLD TOWN
HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
Ready by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
EXPANDING THE OLD TOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
10
ChancJe of Zone 5631 - Tentative Tract 25320 Bedford Properties
(Continued from the meeting of January 28, 1992)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Continue Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
25320 to March 10, 1992.
11
Aooeal No. 18, Administrative Plot Plan 192 - Creekside Car Care Center
(Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a 45 foot high freeway sign)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
21agentis/021192 4 02/06/92
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 18, ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO. 192, TO INSTALL A 45
FOOT HIGH FREEWAY SIGN AT AN APPROVED AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF FRONT STREET AND
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, 29115 FRONT STREET
COUNCIL BUSINESS
12 Amendment to City Municioal Code - Fire Hydrant Parking Distances
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 12.08 AT SECTION
12.08.223 REGARDING PARKING IN FRONT OF FIRE
HYDRANTS.
13
Aooeal of Planninc~ Commission Decision - Aooeal No. 21 - Plot Plan No 86 - Revised
Nq. I
A proposal to construct additional improvements to an existing Inland Valley
Cablevision structure located at 30975 La Serena Way.
(Appeal filed by Councilmember Mu~oz
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE
PLOT PLAN NO. 86, REVISED NO. I TO CONSTRUCT A 225 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, A 120 SQUARE FOOT GENERATOR
PAD (WITH GENERATOR) AND A 1,000 GALLON PROPANE TANK SITE (WITH
PROPANE TANK) ON A PARCEL CONTAINING .68 ACRES LOCATED AT
30975 LA SERENA WAY (EAST SIDE OF LA SERENA WAY, APPROXIMATELY
500 FEET NORTH OF SOUTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD) AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-050-015.
21egende/O21192 6 02/06/92
14 Citv Promotional Program
(Continued from the meeting of January 28, 1992)
Discussion item placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mur~oz
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: February 25, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California,
2/l~efldd021182 8 02/06/'12
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
.:
'TEMECUL~ COMMUNITy' SERV, IC;ES DISTRICT MEETi'Na L:. |T~$: be : l~.ld."~ 8:00!"
President Ronald J. Parks
DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mufioz
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
I Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2
1.1 Approve the minutes of January 28, 1992.
Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the Six Months ended December 31.1991
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file report.
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting February 25,
1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula
Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21egende~O21192 7 O2/O6~t2
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson J. Sal Mu~oz presiding
ROLL CALL:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Mur~oz, Parks,
Moore
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
I Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Approve the minutes of January 28, 1992.
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the Six Months ended December 31.
19~11.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
AGENCY BUSINESS:
3
Receive and file report.
Owner Participation Aareement Between Temecula Redevelooment AQencv and
California Curves, Inc. to Provide for a $50,000. Qrant for Seismic Retrofitring
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Authorize the Executive Director to execute an Owner Participation
Agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency subject to approval
by the General Counsel as to form.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
Next regular meeting February 25, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula
Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21agehall/021192 8 02/06/92
PROCLAMATIONS
The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the daffodil is the first flower of spring, and with spring comes the eternal
hope of a world free of cancer; and
WHEREAS, the daffodil and the American Cancer society symbolize this hope; and
WHEREAS, corporate, business and individual participation is vital to continue life-
saving research and education and to fund service and rehabilitation programs in our community;
and
WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society will bring a welcome touch of spring to the
Temecula area when it conducts its annual Daffodil Days celebration, a fundraising event
designed to help in the goal of raising $70,000 in the Inland Empire;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City
of Temecula, hereby proclaim the month of February to be:
DAFFODIL DAYS MONTH
in the City of Temecula, and call upon the businesses and individual citizens to join in this
program by purchasing daffodils from the American Cancer Society to help spread the joy of
spring and hope of a future without cancer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 1 lth day of February, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM
NO.
1
ITEM NO. 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD JANUARY 28, 1 992
A regular meeting of the Temeculs City Council was called to order at 5:21 PM in the Main
Conference Room, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko,
City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Birdsall declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 (b) and (c) regarding Potential Litigation.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:13 PM in regular session by Mayor Birdsall.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Harris Mullen, Seventh Day Adventist Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the pledge of allegiance by Councilmember Muffoz.
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Birdsall proclaimed January 29, 1992 "Ronald J. Parks Day" and presented him with
a commemorative plaque.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Joe Seguin, 41640 Avenida de la Reins, addressed the City Council requesting that Item 14
be continued to the meeting of February 11, 1992. Mayor Birdsall asked the City Council if
they have any objections to continuing this item to that date.
City Manager Dixon recommended that those people wishing to speak on this item should be
allowed to speak at this meeting.
N i nutes\1%28%92 - 1 - 02/05/92
City Council Minutes January 28.1992
Loree Santomauro, Heritage Mobile Home Park, 31130-175 S. General Kearny, addressed the
City Council voicing objections to the Buie Corporation locating their maintenance yard in
close proximity to many of the mobile homes in the park. She stated General Kearny Road
has been damaged due to construction and maintenance vehicles, and the dust caused by the
vehicles and the operation of the maintenance facility, is endangering the health of senior
residents. She further objected to diesels being run in the early morning hours, disturbing
residents sleep. She said original plans did not include a maintenance yard at that location.
Mayor Birdsall asked if this is a temporary or permanent maintenance yard? City Manager
Dixon referred the matter to the Planning Department for a report.
Frank Kimbro, 31231 Corte Alhambra, requested that the City Council solve the problems of
school busses in the residential area around the High School. He stated residents are still
subjected to noise and fumes caused by these vehicles.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans requested that this matter be placed on a future agenda since this
problem has not as yet been solved.
Councilmember Muftoz asked if any further information from the School District has been
received. City Manager Dixon stated that staff will prepare an update.
Sam Levine, 42367 Cosmic Drive, requested that Item No. 20 dealing with the Senior Center
be moved up on the agenda.
Mayor Birdsall stated the Council had previously decided to hear Item No. 20 immediately
following the public hearings.
Patricia Keller, 39695 Creative Drive, Winchester Creek Collection, requested that the City
Council aid the Winchester Creek Control Committee in assuring their slopes will be properly
maintained. She reported slopes are not being properly maintained and vegetation is being
lost. She requested a neighborhood council be formed to meet with City staff on a regular
basis to take care of problems such as this.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked if this issue has been heard before the Parks and Recreation
Commission. Ms. Keller stated she has spoken with City staff, and has gotten an independent
appraisal, however she has not brought this matter before the Commission. City Manager
Dixon asked that this be referred to him and he will address the problem immediately.
Councilmember Muftoz stated he likes the idea of forming a neighborhood council, and further
stated a performance clause is included in these contracts and this problem can be rectified.
David Servetter, 31365 Paseo Geleta, requested that invocations at City Council meetings be
non-denominational.
James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, suggested that the City Council attend a
Budget Meeting of the Rancho California Water District on Wednesday, January 29, 1992 at
1:30 PM. He further asked that the City Council implement methods to insure ground water
N i nutes\ 1 \28\92 - 2 - 02/05/92
City Co-ncil Minutes January :}8.1992
is not polluted and rainfall is retained whenever possible. He emphasized points from a letter
received from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and distributed copies to
the Council.
Mayor Birdsall stated the City will have a representative at that meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Birdsall stated Item No. 8 will be removed from the agenda at the request of staff.
Councilmember Parks corrected the minutes of January 14, 1992, stating on Items Item 15,
16 and 17 the vote should reflect he was absent·
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked on Item 9, Conversion of City Vehicles, if the numbe~
recommended for conversion is sufficient? Councilmember Mu~ioz stated this is a start in
setting an example to business leaders· City Manager Dixon reported that with the conversion
of three additional vehicles, a total of five of eleven City vehicles will be converted. He
reported staff is committed to this program and is working toward these goals.
Councilmember Parks requested the removal of Item No. 4 from Consent Calendar.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1-3, 5-7, and 9.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
1.1
2. Minutes
2.1
Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
Approve the minutes of January 14, 1992 as corrected.
N t nutes%1%28%92 -3- 02/05/92
Citv Council Minutes
3.
Resolution Aoorovina List of Demands
3.1
January 98.1992
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
City Treasurer's Rel;)ort for the Period Endina December 31.1991
5.1 Receive and file report.
Committee Appointments to General Plan Technical Subcommittee
6.1 Appoint the following individuals to serve on the five general plan
technical subcommittees:
Land Use: David Christian, Bruce McCandless, Larry
Markham, Ralph Brownell, David Lowry
Traffic/Circulation: Csaba Ko, Bob Hemme, Max Gilliss, Sydney
Vernon
Community Desion: Marshe Slaven, Nancy Maurice, Bob Brotherton,
Doug Scott
Economic Development: Allen McDonald, Guy Willjams, Jim Meyler,
Howard Chesher
Growth Management: Wayne Baimbridge, Perry Peters, Marc Grisham,
Jay Hoffman, Phil Hoxey
Willdan Contract Amendment
7.1 Approve an amendment to the contract with Willdan Associates and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
Conversion of Citv Vehicles to Alternative Fuel Sources
9.1 Approve conversion of three (3) vehicles to propane.
9.2 Amend the FY 91-92 budget by $5,000 for the cost of conversion.
Iq i nutes\l \28\92 -6 - 02105/92
Citv Council Minutes January ~8.1992
4. Channes in Policy nuidelines for Old Town Historic Review Board
Councilmember Parks asked if an alternate could vote if a regular member abstains.
Assistant City Manager Ochenduszko, stated an abstention is a registered vote. He
further advised if a voting member choose to be absent from the vote rather than
abstaining, the alternate could vote on the issue.
Councilmember Parks stated he would like to see this policy encouraged. He further
requested that alternate members be allowed to vote on an item if they have reviewed
minutes and/or tapes of the previous meetings when it was discussed.
Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko stated he would make the appropriate
changes.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt
the amended policy guidelines to the Old Town Historical Review Committee
Operational Guidelines with a additional amendment to allow the alternate to vote if
he/she has reviewed the minutes and tape of the previous meeting.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Hearing no objection from the Council, Mayor Birdsall reordered the agenda to accommodate
the citizens wishing to speak on the Senior Center.
20. Consideration of Site Sele~;tion and Establishment of Senior Center
Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, presented the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked why Redevelopment Funds were not being used for
this project. Finance Officer Mary Jane Henry explained that rather than postpone this
project, it is proposed to fund the Senior Center from Development Impact Fees and
repay this account from Redevelopment funds at a later date.
Councilmember Parks asked if a needs assessment has been completed at the Bus Barn
facility. Mr. Nelson reported a needs assessment has been completed and only a shell
exists at this time and inside renovation is necessary.
Minutes\l\28\92 -5- 02105192
City Council Minutes January 98.1992
Councilmember Mut~oz asked if it would be more economical to find e facility such as
City did for the teen center. Mr. Nelson stated if the Old Town Facility is accepted as
the preferred site, it will be a permanent location for the Senior Center and will be
more economical in the long run.
Mario Minardi, 30433 Cebrillo Avenue, requested that the Old Town Facility be
chosen to enable the seniors to have a permanent center. He stated the seniors can
contribute to the community with the many talents they possess.
Mayor Birdsell called a brief recess at 8:10 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:11 PM.
Mary M. Phillips, 41532 Chenin Blanc, thanked the City Council for their help in
developing the Senior Center and requested the Old Town Site be chosen.
Sam Levine, 42367 Cosmio Drive, stated approximately six months ago he presented
the City Council with · petition containing 1,300 signatures, requesting a senior
facility. He stated 30% of the residents of Temecula are over the age of 55 years old,
and asked that this matter be resolved at this meeting.
Netty Glines, 37430 Avenida Chapale, asked why the seniors do not have there facility
now, and when it is going to be completed. She stated that seniors would love to
serve the City and asked for the opportunity to do so.
Councilmember Parks stated he would like to see City allow the Seniors to occupy the
building now and be involved with designing the center.
City Manager Dixon, stated the City needs to be sure the building is safe prior to
occupancy. He informed the Council that Chief Building Official Tony Elmo will
personally oversee this project, to make sure electrical, hot and cold water, restrooms
and other requirements are. met to insure the safety of the Seniors.
Councilmember Parks suggested phasing the project so that one room could be
completed quickly to allow the Seniors to be involved in the building of this facility.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
instruct staff to proceed with the improvements to the Old Town site making one room
available as soon as possible and to direct the Building Official to work closely with the
Senior Citizens Group to assure safety of the facilities during construction of the
improvements. It was further directed to transfer $356,960 from Development Impact
Fees fund to the TCSD Capital Project Fund.
Ninutes\1\28\~2 -6- 02/05/92
City Council Minutes
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
January 98.1992
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks,
Birdsall
None
None
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 8:25 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the
previously scheduled CSD Meeting at 9:00 PM.
PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Parks stated that although he was absent at the last Council meeting, he did
review tapes and is prepared to vote on the public hearings.
Councilmember Mufioz stated ha would be absent from voting on Items 10 and 11 due to a
conflict of interest.
Mayor Birdsall announced that Items 10 and 11 would be heard concurrently.
10.
Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23372 - Buie CorPoration - Marciarite Village Soecific
Plan
11.
Vesting Tentative Tract MaO No. 23373 - Buie CorDoration - Margarita Village Specific
Bin
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill stated that applicant has requested a continuance
for two weeks and requested direction from the Council whether a staff report should
be presented at this time.
Councilmember Parks expressed preference to hear public comment, but asked that
staff end citizens not report on issues already addressed.
Gary Thomhill presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks asked whether the issue on whether this project would be
restricted to Seniors. Mr. Thornhill stated that the language in the Specific Plan is
unclear and therefore staff suggest this condition be added to the Conditions of
Approval.
H i hates\ 1%28%92 - 7- 02105192
City Council Minutes January ~8.1992
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet, gave an update on drainage issues, stating he has
received reports from two consultants regarding the blockage of the Long Valley Wash.
He explained the two reports reflect different viewpoints, one being the box culvert
was plugged due to inadequate maintenance, and the other the blockage occurred due
to erosion from neighboring properties. He reported, however, that the two maps in
question have not been graded.
Myra Vonsalves, 41556 Zinfandel Avenue, expressed concern that this development
remain a senior project and not an apartment complex. She requested that a feasibility
study be conducted for the commercial site and stated the Vineyard tract has no
barrier to this commercial area. She also asked that a traffic study be completed, with
the impact on The Vineyard tract considered.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 9:30 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:31 PM.
Mayor Parks asked that the Council hear from a representative of the applicant to
address this issue.
Jim Resney, Buie Corporation, representing the applicant, stated he did not have any
comments at this time.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans asked Mr. Resney if he is willing to meet with concerned
citizens to put together conditions of approval to the full satisfaction of surrounding
citizens. He stated he would be willing to meet and put together conditions and
determine a fair share of costs involved.
Barbara Bentley, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, stated she is against approval of the
extensions and is very dissatisfied with this project.
Ralph Brownall, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, stated the density on this project is still
confusing. He stated the County of Riverside requires developer's to protect
downstream properties, yet Buie has failed to abide by this rule. He asked that the
City Council take a close look at the responsibility of this developer.
Diana Taylor, 41942 Humbar Drive, Villages Community, stated the Villages
Homeowners Association has had to pay almost 8100,000 in damages from silt. She
stated that no one will take responsibility for this problem, and as a result residents
have been hurt.
Joseph R. Shekoski, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, suggested denying the extension of time
requiring the developer to resubmit with the City, who would then have control over
this project.
Sydney Vernon, 30268 Metsay Court, stated the Villages Homeowners Association
has had to pay approximately ~80,000 to remove foreign material from the Long
nut es\1%28\92 - 8 - 02/05/92
City Council Minutes January 28.1992
Valley Wash. He explainedthat little of this material originated from the Villages, and
most came from Bedford and Buie Projects.
Jane Vernon, 30268 Marsay Court, stated the developers causing this damage need
to take responsibility for their actions end clean up the wash.
Mike Fiducia, showed e video tape to the City Council of a rain storm before the
Palomar Village Shopping Center was completed and before there was any erosion
control at the Buie Corporation Project.
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of Villages Homeowners Association,
approved by the Board to speak, asked the City Council to for help in working with the
developer to clean out the Long Valley Wash. He said if the extensions are approved,
the City will have no ability to gain cooperation from the developer on these issues,
and asked that the Council deny the first extensions of time on Vesting Tentative Tract
Map Numbers 32272 end 23373.
Jim Danow, Counsel to Villages Homeowners Association, stated the laws regarding
management and control of property require the upstream landowner to be responsible
for damage downstream. He asked that this problem be solved in the City Council
forum and not in a court of law.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried, with
Councilmember Mur~oz absent.
James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, requested that this project be conditioned with
standards required to catch the run-off so it would not damage downstream property.
He stated the Environmental Determination of this site was obviously not done
correctly because it has adversely affected health and welfare, and surrounding
property. He suggested the EIR for this project needs to be updated to reflect current
technology for water management.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 10:25 PM to change the tape. The meeting
reconvened at 10:26 PM.
Councilmember Parks asked staff to research any legal recourse the City may have to
force developer to clean up dirt end silt problem and what legal restrictions exist since
these maps were not involved in the erosion problems.
Councilmember Moore asked that concerned parties get together to resolve this
problem and asked that a condition be placed on these maps that it remain for senior
residents only.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans ask staff to research the health and safety issue regarding
the Long Valley Wash. He also requested that if first extensions are granted, the issue
of proper maintenance be addressed as well as a feasibility study for the commercial
Ninutes\1\28\92 -9- 02/05/92
City Council Minutes Janua(v 78.1992
phase. In accordance with the request from citizens of the Vineyard Tract, he asked
that a traffic study be completed.
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill recommend continuing Items 10 and 11 to the
meeting of February 25, 1992.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 and 23373 to the meeting of
February 25, 1992 with staff being further directed to investigate the City's recourse
in directing the developer to pay for cleaning up the damage to Long Valley Wash.
Staff was further directed: to pursue the source of the silt problem and require a
condition that the development is Senior Housing only. Staff was also instructed to
place an evaluation of the specific plan on the agenda.
The motion was carried by .the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mufioz
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 10:36 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 10:50 PM with
all members present.
12.
Chan;e of 7one No. 5631. Tentative Tract Mao No. 75320 - Bedford Prooerties
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to
continue the public hearing to the meeting of February 11, 1992.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
Birdsall
None
None
nut es\ 1 \28\92 - 10 - 02/05/92
City Council Minutes
COUNCIl BUSIN;SS
January 28.1992
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to continue
Item 13 to the Meeting of February 11, 1992, Item No. 17 to the Meeting of February 25,
1992 and Item No. 19 to the Meeting of February 11, 1992. The motion was unanimously
carried.
14.
Avenida de la Reina Study
Tim Serlet, City Engineer, presented the staff report.
Patti Fernandez, 31210 Corte Alhambra, Villa Avente Tract, spoke in support of the
closure and asked that Avenida de la Reina be permanently closed.
Carol Boyd, 31160 Corte Alhambra, spoke in support of the closure.
Joe Seguin, 41640 Avenida de la Reina, spoke in favor of the closure, and stated he
would hope the Council would hold safety above inconvenience.
John Fewer, 31381 Paseo Goleta, spoke against the street closure.
Mary Giordano, 41639 Avenida de la Reina, stated that resident David Chabitonni, had
sent a video tape to the City Council and asked that it be viewed. Ms. Giordano spoke
in favor of a permanent closure of Avenida de la Reina.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
continue the meeting until 11:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
Cynthia Bonner, 30955 Corte Arroyo Vista, spoke against the street closure.
Martin Rauscher, 31257 Corte Alhambra, asked that the City explore other alternatives
to closing the street, such as the electronic gate option.
David Servetter, 31625 Paseo Golleta, asked that other alternatives be explored rather
than the permanent closure of Avenida de la Reina.
Councilmember Parks asked if the electronic gate system has been evaluated. He
suggested a that homeowners might be issued a card that would open the gate. City
Attorney Field stated that this would be illegal on a public street. He advised that if
the resident's wished to be responsible for street maintenance, they could request that
the City abandon the street as public property.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 11:40 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 11:42 PM.
M j hates% 1%28%92 - 11 - 02/05/92
Citv Council Minutes
January ~8.199~
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufloz to
extend the meeting to 12:00 AM. The motion was unanimously carried.
Mekkia de Sanchez, 31418 Corte Sonora, spoke against closure of Avenida de la
Reina.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans recommended continuing the closure of Avenida de la Reina
for a period of three months and also implement closure of Paseo Goleta at Corte
Sonora.
Councilmember Parks stated he would like this item continued to look at further
alternatives, specifically an electronic gate system.
Councilmember Moore stated she is basically against closing roads and would like to
see how this will affect the General Circulation portion of the General Plan before
voting to permanently close this road. She suggested continuing this item until a full
report is available.
Glen Madison, 31241 CorteAIhambra, stated the School District is at fault by causing
this traffic problem end should have a responsibility in this issue. He suggested closing
the two openings that exist for the high school and making a road from Margarita,
around the back of the high school.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue this item for 30 days, with the intention to first present the report to the
Traffic Commission. The motion was unanimously carried.
15.
Community Services Fundir~0 Reauests
Finance Officer Mary Jane Henry presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks expressed concern that the $260,000 for the City Promotional
Campaign is allocated from discretionary funds, and stated he would like to see
additional funds put back into the Community Services Funding account.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Mufloz to extend
the meeting until 12:30 AM. The motion was unanimously carried.
Nancy Maurice, 29405 Via Norte, President of Temecula Museum, spoke in favor of
funding the Temecula Museum at the requested level. She said the museum will soon
face eviction without aid from the City. She requested that this request be discussed
further on e future egenda.
Margaret Benzango, 41498 Avenida Barca, Chairman of Temecula Valley High School
Grad Night, spoke in favor of funding for this event and urged Councii's support of the
City's graduating seniors.
NimtH\l\H\~ -12- ~1~1~
City Council Minutes Janljarv 98, 1992
Michael Fages, 31000 Chaldon Circle, spoke in favor of supporting Grad Night.
Mike Maxwell, 42786 Agena Street, spoke in favor of Council supporting Grad Night.
Keith Wertz, 26895 Fayence Drive, Murrieta, spoke in support of the funding request
by the Arts Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked that this matter be continued for two weeks and the
requests be reviewed again.
Councilmember Parks stated he is in favor of a continuance and stated that the Council
needs to be looking at the quality of life this community can provide.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
continue this item to the meeting of February 11,1992. The motion was unanimously
carried.
16. ADoointment of Public Safety Commission Member
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
appoint Deborah Holliday to the Public Safety Commission. The motion was
unanimously carried.
18. Ordinance to Reauire Fire Resistive Roof Coverinos
Councilmember Parks asked if this has been discussed with the development
community and if this will add costs to residents. He asked for · further report st the
time of the public hearing.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindsmans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
set a public hearing for Tuesday, February 25, 1992 to consider the adoption of an
ordinance to require Fire Resistive Roof Coverings. The motion was unanimously
carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to read
by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
AMENDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457, 'UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE" ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BY
AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING FIRE RESISTIVE
ROOF COVERINGS
H i nutes \ 1%28%92 - 13 - 02/05/92
City Council Minutes January
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAn;R RI:PORTS
City Manager Dixon reported that staff will re-budget the Community Services Funding and
should be able to add $60,000 of available funds for programs the Council is interested in
funding.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
CITY COUNCIl RFPORTS
By Council consensus it was decided to adjourn to a Special Meeting on Saturday, February
1,1992, 12:00 PM with the Temacula Unified School District to establish an agenda for a full
session.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans requested the Margarita Village Specific Plan be placed on the
agenda for evaluation.
Councilmember Mu~oz requested that problems associated with Assessment District 161 be
placed on the agenda for discussion.
ADJOURNMFNT
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Muf~oz to adjourn at
12:50 AM to a Special Meeting on February 1, 1992 at 12:00 PM to meet with the Temecula
Unified School District. The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
M i nut es \ 1 \28\92 - 16 - 02/05/92
ITEM NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RF~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RE~OLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been
audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of
$750,668.61
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 1 lth day of February, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/Re~oa 230
CITY. OF TEMECULA
UST OF DEMANDS
01/24/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$78,486.68
01/31/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$416,713.45
02/03/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
01/30/92 PAYROLL:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 2/11/92 COUNCIL MEETING:
$750,668.61
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL
019 TCSD
021 CAPITAL PROJECTS-CITY
029 CAPITAL PROJECT~TCSD
PAYROLL:
001 GENERAL (PAYROLL)
019 TCSD (PAYROLL)
$383,273.02
$269,480.12
$1,254.58
$3,838.00
$71,589.05
:$21,233.54
$657,845.72
TOTAL BY FUND:
$750,668.61
PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE
I, MARY JAN
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
~HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
~2/0~/92 City of iemecuia Page:
Fiscal Year: 19t2 Check Register
Check Date Yendot Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
00009181 02111192 WILLDAN WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
/' 4004171 01/16/92 01/31/~2 MARCH IHRU AUB ~I/ENGINEERINS 2&~1~1.50 0.00 26,1~1.50
4004177 01/31I~2 01/31/t2 REVISED PUBLIC TRANSFER CASES 13&,~14.0V 0.00 136,514.09
Check Totals: 162,645.59 0.00 162,&45.59
ReDoft Totals: l&2~&45.S9 0,00 1&2~645.59
02/03192
Re~ort idter
FUND CHECK NUNBER CHEC~ DATE
VENDOR NA~E
001 0000~181 02111192 NILLOAN ASSOCIATES
001 000D~181 0211~R2 MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
001 855b 01/~0R2 S.C.A.C,E.O.
CHECK LZSTiNG BY FUND
001
DESCRIPTION
MARCH THRU AUG 911ENGINEER]NG
REVISED PUBLIC TRANSFER CASES
Page:
Station:
AMOUNT
2~,131.5D
1~6~514,0~
l&2,b45.5~
0i/3i/~2 City of lemecuia Page:
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 5369
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Bate P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
00008999 01/24/92 RBA ROBERT BROTHERTON ARCHITECTS
9205 01/01192 01/01/92 ARCHITECTURAL SERV. SPORT PRK BO0.O0 0.00 BO0.O0
9161 01/01/92 01/01/92 ARCHITECTURAL SER. SPORT PRK IJ21.00 0.00 1J21.00
Check Totals:
00009000 01/28/92 LUNCH&ST LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
32840 01/24/92 01/24192 DINNER FOR COUNCIL STAFF
2,021.00 0.00 2~021.00
BO.O0 0.00 80.00
00009127 01/29/92
012792
Check Totals:
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS
01/27192 01127/92 DUSINESS MEETINGS
SO.O0 0.00 80.00
650.00 0.00 650.00
00009129 01/31/92 AGA
013192
Check Totals:
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
01/31/92 01/31/92 ENERG ACCOUNTING/FEB 19
6~0.00 0.00 650.00
180.00 0.00 ISO.O0
00009130 01/31/92 ALLIED
120243-00
ALLIED B~RICADE
01/16/92 11191
Check Totals:
01/02/92 OPEN ACCDUNTIHISC. NERCH.
180.00 0.00 180.00
161.99 0.00 161.99
Check Totals:
00009131 01/31/92 BIRDSALL RIRDSALL, PATRiCIA
676-3642E 01/07/92 01/07/92 REINS FOR PHONE CHBS
161.99 0.00 161.99
21.15 0.00 21.15
00009132 01/31/92 CADET CADET UNIFORM
606895 01/17/92 10625
Check Totals:
08109191RUSS;CTY HALL;RNTLSINASTE FEE
21.15 0.00 21.1~
26.50 0.00 26.50
00009133 01/31/92 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN
00005!7564 01/14/92 10626
8020/70200 01/01/92 10920
10842 01/10/92 10626
0904/7994 01106/92 10626
Check Totals:
07/01/91PUBL~LGL NTC!PLAN.COHM;COUNCL
10102191ADV.EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS;H.R.
07/01/91PUBL,LOL NTC;PLAN.COHM;COUNCL
07/01/91PUBL,LSL NTC;PLAN.COHM!COUNCL
26.50 0.00 26.50
234.30 0.00 234J0
60.50 0.00 60.~0
44.14 0.00 44.14
117.70 0.00 I17.70'
Check Totals:
00009134 01/~1/92 CAMPBELL CAMPBELLS LIGHTING~ SIGN/ELEC
12626 01/22/92 0329 12/18/91 REPLACE LAMPS-BALLAST;OLD INN
456.64 0.00 456.64
883.14 0.00 883.14
00009135 011~1192 CANYON
4887
Check Totals:
CANYON REPROGRAPHICS
01/02/92 11204 01/02/92 COPIES OF CONTRACT DOCS
883.14 0.00 88~.14
654.58 0.00 654.58
Check Totals:
00009136 01131192 CARLWARR CARL WARREN & CO.
92876 01/13/92 01/13/92 ~AN SERVICES
654.5B 0.00 654,58
40.38 0.00 40.38
Check Totals:
00009137 01/31/92 CASSIERE KATHLEEN CASSIERE
012892 01128/92 01/28/92 REFUND
40.38 0.00 40.38
65.00 0.00 65.00
Check Totals:
0x~'~91~8 01/ZI/92 CHEVRON CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
7~20772253 01t07/92 01/07192 792-077-225-3/N09 & DEC 91CH
65.00 0.00 65.00
149.6~ 0.00 149.63
Check Totals:
149.63 0.00 149.63
00009139 01/51/92 CONVERSE CONVERSE CONSULTAUTS
01/51/92 City of leeEcula Paoe:
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date VenOor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date OescriDtion Sross Discount Net
8021~ 01/01/92 0286 10/08/91 SOILS & VALVE TESTS;RCHO CAL. 600.00 0.00 600.OL.,
Check Totals: 600,00 0.00 600.00
00009140 01/31/92 COOP DONALD COOP
012892 01/28/92 01/28/92 REFUND ~84.00 0.00 384,00
Check Totals:
00009141 01/31/92 DR VINCI DA VINCI SYSTENS, INC.
012492 01/24/92 01/24/92 SOFTNARE UPSRADE
384.00 0,00 384.00
~0.00 0.00 30.00
00009142 01/31192 DAVLIN DAVLIN
89-23144 01114192 11212
Check Totals:
12/17/91 VIDEO/JAN 17
~0.00 0.00 30.00
600.00 0.00 600.00
Check Totals:
00009143 01/31/92 GLENNIES GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
8209~-0 01/16/92 10704 0812~191TAPE;RIDDON;LABELS;SPLYSiTCSD
8~448-0 01/21/92 11207 01/09/92 ~FFICE SUPPLIES; CSD
82124-0 01116/92 11197 01/09/92 OFFICE SUPPLIES; CSD
600.00 0.00 600.00
IB.BB 0.00 18.88
264.52 0.00 264.52
231.05 0.00 2~1.05
00009144 01/31/92 GTEBILL 6TE
162-60438 01/16/92
162-60528 01/16/92
162-55958 01/16/92
Check Totals:
01116192 714-162-6043/JAN CHSS
01/16/92 714-162-6052/JAN CHSS
01/16192 714-162-5595/JAN CHSS
514,45 0.00 514.45
~,~2~.96 0.00 ~,325.96
105.75 0.00 105.75
438.63 0.00 438.6~
Check Totals:
00009145 01/51/92 HARRINST HARRINSTON~ KEVIN
012392 01/2~/92 01/25/92 REIMB CPRS MEETINS
00009146 01/~1192 HARRISON TINA HARRISON
012892 01/28/92
:Check Totals:
01128192'REFUNDIDANCE CLASS
3,868.34 0.00 ~868,3
10.00 0.00 10.00
10.00 0.00 10.00
40.00 0,00 40.00
Check Totals:
00009147 01/~1/92 HOTSPRIN HOT SPRIN~ PHOTO
111891 01/01/92 10824 09112/91 PHOTOGRAPH DINNER;SEPT.14
40.00 0.00 40.00
112.71 0.00 112.71
00009148 01/~1/92 IC~A ICNA
2DFCN.6~ 01/02/92
2DFCH.65 01/16/92
012892 01128~92
Check Totals:
01/02/92 Nor. Payroll I/2/92
01/16/92 Normal P/R, 1/16/92
01/28/92 RETIREMENT DEPOSIT/~AN 92
112.71 0,00 112.71
565.23 0.00 565.23
550.43 0.00 550.43
10~074.01 0.00 10~074.01
Check Totals:
00009149 01/51/92 INTERNAT INTERNATL CONF. OF BLDG. OFFL
012892 01/28/92 01128/92 INSPECTION SEHINAR
11J89.67 0.00 11~189.67
285.00 0.00 285.00
00009150 01/31/92 KR~SEN
012192
00009151 01131/92 [YLE
012792
Check Totals:
KRAGEN AUTO PARTS
01/21/92 01/21/92 ROAD FLARES
Check Totals:
NENDY KYLE
01/27192 01/27/92 REFUND
285,00 0.00 285.00
54,21 0.00 34,21
54,21 0.00 34,2
44.00 0.00 44.00
Check Totals: 44.00 0.00 44.00
01151192 City o~ lemecula FaDe: :.
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 356~
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Biscount Net
~0009152 01/;1/92 LIBERTY LIBERTY AUTO CENTER
002550 01/27/92 11051 10/08/91MAINT,CITY VEHICLES;BLDB&SFTY 21.19 0.00 21,19
Check Totals:
00009153 01/31/92 MARILYNS MARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
1%7 01/27/92 1117; 12/17/tl BREAKROOM SUPPLIES
21.19 0.00 21.19
71.48 0.00 71.48
Check Totals:
00009154 01/31/92 OLSONIDO OLSON/DODD/FINAL TOUCH HARKET
0;84/4-92 01/20/92 0;39 12/17/91 PROMOTIONAL PROGRAN FOR CITY
0384/5-92 01120/92 0339 12/17/91 PROMOTIONAL PROGRAN FOR CITY
0;84/2-92 01/20/92 0339 12117191 PROMOTIONAL PROGR~ FOR CITY
038411-92 01120192 0339 12/17/91 PROMOTIONAL PROGRAN FOR CITY
71.48 0.00 71.48
284.S& 0.00 284.56
9,666.00 0.00
1,750.00 0.00 1,750.00
5,500.00 0.00 5~500.00
0000~155 01t3il92 PERS
2MEDC.&~
2MEDC.&5
012792
Check Totals:
PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREHIUH)
01/02/92 01/02/92 Nor. Payroll 1/2/92
01/16/92 01/16/92 Normal P/R~ 1116192
01/27192 01/27192 INSURANCE PREMIUMRAN 19~2
17~200.5& 0.00 17~200.5&
164.00 0.00 164.00
164.00 0.00 164.00
18,585.45 0.00 18.585.43
Check Totals:
00009156 01/31/92 PESTMAST PESTMASTER SERVICES
07;19! 01/01/92 10497 07117191MAINT/~ULY 1991CHG
012092 01/01/92 10497 07/17/91MAINT/OCT 28,jAN 11 92
07159!-B 01/01/92 106~6 07/01/91 PEST SERV.SPORTS PARk; ~UNE
18~915.45 0.00 18,91~.4;
140.00 0.00 !40.00
280.00 0.00 280.00
50.00 0.00 50.00
.009157 01/31192 PETROLAN PETROLANE
483979 01121/92 10995
012192-I 01/21/92 10994
Check Totals:
10/21/91 FUEL (PROPANE) TCSD TRUCK
10/21/91 FUEL (PROPANE) B&S TRUCK
470,00 0.00 470.00
57.18 0.00 57.18
19.72 0.00 19.72
00009158 01/31/92 PETfig PETTY CASH
012792 01/27/92
Check Totals:
01/27/92 REIMB PETTY CASH/aAN
76.90 0.00 76.90
;15.22 0.00 315.22
00009159 0113!/92 PRE!SEN
012492
Check Totals:
ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ
01124/92 01124192 REFUND CPRS CLASS
515.22 0.00 ~15.22
I0,00 0.00 10.00
Check Totals:
00009160 01I;1/92 RANCHOAR RANCHO ARMY-NAVY STORE
6247 01/01/92 11119 12/10/91 SAFETY BOOTS FOR TCSD
6291 01/21/92 11!19 12/10/91 SAFETY BOOTS FOR TCSD
10.00 0.00 10.00
91.57 0.00 91.57
91.56 0.00 91,56
Check Totals:
O00091&l 01!~1/92 RANCHOIN RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
I1082~ 01/22/92 11201 01/14t92 ~ANITORIAL SUPPLIES;CITY HALL
110858 01/2~/92 11201 01/14/92 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES:CITY HALL
183.13 0.00 183,13
108.50 0.00 108.50
32,22 0.00 32.22
Check Totals:
00009162 01131/92 SAN DIEG SAN DIEGO AREA CHAPTER ICBO
0124~2 01/24/92 01124/92 !~2 ANNUAL ~EM~ERSHIP
00009165 0!I31/92 SANDIEGO SAN DIEGO UNION
077257450 01/01/92 11222
Check Totals:
12/0819100B AD FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER
140.72 0.00 140.72
25.00 0.00 25.00
25.00 0.00 25.00
225.8; 0.00 22;,85
01151/92 City OT iemecu~a r~ae:
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vendor Naee
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
Check Totals: 223.8~ 0.00 223.83
00009164 01/~1/92 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN "'
077~E 01104192 01/04192 4799020000010773/DEC CHGS 2~.3B 0.00 23.3,
0781E 01104192 01/04/92 47980200000107811DEC CNGS 53.68 0.00 5~.68
Check lotale: 77.0& 0.00 77.0&
00009165 01/$1/92 SHELDON SHELDON EXTINGUISHER CO,
444&& 01101/92 112~2 01101192 FIRE EXT, ~AILICOPY ROOM
O00091&& 01/$1/92 SIRSPEED SIR SPEEDY
4687 01/22/92 11209
Check Totals:
01114192 BIN STATIONARY ENVELOPES
&4.SO 0,00 &4,&O
519.25 0.00 519.25
Check Totals: 519.25 0.00 519,25
000091~7 01/$1/92 SNITN,P PHILLIP O. SMITH
012492 01/24/92 01/2U92 REIN8 FOR ICBD MEETING 10.00 0,00 10,00
Check Totals:
00009168 01/31/92 SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO,
3457418E 01/07/92 01107/92 714-345-7418/DEC CALLS
3457421E 01/07/92 01/07/92 714-345-7421/DEC. CALLS
$45-7421E 01/01/92 01/01/92 714-345-742110CT. CHBS
$457422E 01107192 01/07192 714-345-7422/DEC. CHGS
2924020E 01107192 01/07/92 714-292-4020/DEC, CHGS
10.00 0.00 10,00
81,47 0.00 81,47
109,85 0,00 109,85
108,9~ 0,00 108,93
81,05 0.00 81,05
87.89 0,00 87.89
00009169 01/31/92 UN[TOG
2H2387
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
01/17/92 11180 12/13191
Check Totals: 469,19 0,00 469,19
UNIFORM RENTALSICOMM,SERVICE 107,40 0,00 107,.'
00009170 01/31/92 UNUM
012792
Check Totals:
UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA
01127/92 01/27/92 INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR JAN 92
107,40 O.O0 107,40
2,105.95 0.00 2,105.95
Check Totals:
00009171 011~II92 URGENTCA URGENT CARE MEDICAL CENTER
011392 01/13/92 11231 01/01/92 PRE-EMPLDYMENT EXA~.2-EMPLDY
2,105.95 0.00 2,105.95
90.00 0.00 90.00
00009172 02111/92 ALLCITY
1223
Check Totals:
ALL CITY HANAGENENT
01113192 0293 10/08/91 TRAFFIC CONTROLII2129-1111192
90.00 0.00 90,00
3,336.00 0.00
Check Totals:
00009173 02/II/92 CITICORP CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
0128697 0211~192 0285 07/01/91 PHONE SYSTEM/FEB 92 CHG
0128697-I 02/13/92 02/I3/92 LATE CHG,
3,~3&.00 0.00
1,427.57 0.00 1,427.57
142.66 0,00 142.66
Check Totals:
00009174 02/11/92 CR&RCORP CR&R INCORPORATED
0101~2 01/14/92 0~43 01/14/92 REFUSE COLLECTION/OCT-DEC 91
1,570,23 0,00 1,570.23
256,273.20 0.00 256,273.20
Check Totals:
00009175 02!11192 8EOTECHN 6EOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL
1625 01/17/92 0310 II/05/91CIP PRO~ECT t129;RCHO VISTA
256,273.20 0.00 25&,27~.20
i,B!7.00 0.00 l~B17.(~L-
00009176 02/11192 JENNACO JENNACO
011092 01/10/92 0341
Check Totals:
12/18/91JANITORIAL SERV. FOR JAN 92
1,8!7.00 0.00 1,817.00
1,621.68 0.00 1,621.68
ReDOrt Writer CHECK LISTING BY FUND Station: 3569
FUND CHECK NUHGER
001 00009000
001 00009127
"~ 00009129
, _ 00009130
001 00009131
001 00009132
001 00009133
001 00009133
001 00009133
001 00009136
001 00009138
001 00009140
001 00009141
001 00009142
001 00009144
001 00009144
001 00009144
001 00009147
001 00009148
001 00009148
001 00009148
001 00009148
001 00009149
001 00009150
001 00009152
001 00009153
001 00009154
001 00009155
00009155
uul 00009155
001 00009155
001 00009155
001 00009156
001 00009156
001 00009157
001 00009158
001 00009161
001 00009162
001 00009163
001 00009164
001 00009164
001 00009165
001 00009166
001 00009167
001 00009168
001 00009168
001 00009170
001 00009171
O01 00009172
001 00009173
001 00009173
001 00009176
001 00009177
~i 00009177
, 00009178
001 00009178
001 00009178
001 00009178
CHECK DATE
01128/92
01129192
01/31R2
01/31/92
01131/92
01/31/92
01/31R2
01/31/92
01/31/92
01131/92
01131/92
01131/92
01/31/92
01/31/92
01/31R2
01131192
01/31R2
01/31/92
01/31/92
01131/92
01/31/92
01/31/92
01131192
01/31/92
01/31R2
01/31/92
01/31/92
01131/92
01131192
01/3!/92
01/31/92
01/31192
01/31t92
01/31/92
01/31t92
01/31/92
01/31/92
01/31192
01/31192
01/31/92
01/31/92
01/31/92
01/31/92
01131192
01/31/92
01131/92
01/31192
01131/92
02/11/92
02111192
02/11/92
02111192
02II1/92
02/11/92
021!i!92
02/11/92
02/11/92
02IlI!92
VENDOR NAME
LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS
ASSOCIATZON OF GOVERNMENT
ALLIED BARRICADE
BIRDSALL~ PATRICIA
CADET UNIFORM
CALIFORNIAN
CALIFORNIAN
CALIFORNIAN
CARL NARREN & CO.
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
DONALD COOP
DA VINCI SYSTEflS, INC.
DAVLIN
6TE
6TE
6TE
HOT SPRINGS PHOTO
ICNA
ICMA
ICMA
ICMA
INTERNATL CONF. OF BLDG. OFFL
KRAGEN AUTO PARTS
LIBERTY AUTO CENTER
HARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
OLSON/DODD/FINAL TOUCH MARKET
PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRENION)
PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIUM)
PER8 (HEALTH INSUR. PREHIUM)
PEAS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIUM)
PEAS (HEALTH ]NSUR. PREMIUm)
PESTMASTER SERVICES
PESTMASTER SERVICES
PETROLANE
PETTY CASH
RANCH0 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
SAN DIEGO AREA CHAPTER ICBO
SAN DIEGO UNION
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
SHELDON EXTINGUISHER CO.
SIR SPEEDY
PHILLIP O. SfllTH
SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA
URGENT CARE MEDICAL CENTER
ALL CITY MANAGEMENT
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
JENNACO
ROBERT BEIN, NM. FROST & ASSO
ROBERT BEIN, Nfl. FROST & ASSO
SYSTEH SOURCE, INC.
SYSTEH SOURCE, INC.
SYSTEM SOURCE, INC.
SYSTEM SOURCE, INC,
DESCRIPTION
DINNER FOR COUNCIL STAFF
BUSINESS HEETINGS
EMERG ACCOUNTING/FEB
OPEN ACCOUNI=fllSC, HERCH,
REINS FOR PHONE CHSS
RUBS;CTY HALL)RNTLS)NASTE FEE
PUBL,LGL NTC;PLAN.CONM:COUNCL
ADV.EflPLOYENI POSITIONS)H.R.
PUBL,~LBL NTC.|PLAN.COMM~CDUNCL
JAN SERVICES
792-077-225-31NDV & DEC 91 CH
REFUND
80FTNARE UPGRADE
VIDEOlaAN 17
714-162-6043/~AN CHBS
714-162-5595/JAN CHBS
714-162-6052/JAN CHGS
PHOTOGRAPH DINNER;SEPI.14
RETIREMENT DEPOSIT/JAN 92
Nor. Payroll 1/2/92
RETIREMENT DEPOSIT/JAN 92
Normal P/R, 1/16/92
INSPECTION SEMINAR
ROAD FLARES
NAINT.CZTY VEHICLES;BLDG&SFTY
BREAKROOM SUPPLIES
PROMOTIONAL PROSRAN FOR CITY
INSURANCE PREMIU~/OAN 1992
Nor. Payroll 1/2/92
INSURANCE PREMIUM/JAN 1992
Normal P/R, 1/16/92
INSURANCE PREMIUM/DAN 1992
MAINT/OCT 28,JAN 11 92
MAINTRULY 1991 CH6
FUEL {PROPANE) B&S TRUCK
REIHB PETTY CASH/JAN
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES~CITY HALL
1992 ANNUAL MEHBERSHIP
30D AD FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER
47980200000107Bl/DEC CHGS
4798020000010771/DEC CHGS
FIRE EXT. HAIL/COPY
B/M STATIONARY ENVELOPES
REINS FOR ICBO flEETING
714-345-7421/DEC. CALLS
714-345-7421/0CT. CHSS
INSURANCE PREHIUM FOR JAN 92
PRE-EHPLOYHENT EXAM.2-EMPLDY
TRAFFIC CONTRDL/I2/29-1/11/92
LATE CHB.
PHONE SYSTER/FEB 92 CH6
JANITORIAL SERV. FOR JAN 92
ENG SERV. MARS/DEC. CHGS 1991
ENG SERV flAR/DEC. 1991 CHBS
STORAGE,BRIDGE, OVERHEAD,MISC
l AC KBOARD, F I LEG, PANELS
TABLE TOP;BASE;BOOKCASE
DIAGONAL SORTERS;HANGERS
AMOUNT
80.00
650.00
180.00
161.99
21.15
26.50
342.71
60.50
40.18
137.42
384.00
30.00
600,00
4~8.&3
105.75
112.71
7,040.~5
522.65
296.78
507,85
285.00
34,21
21.19
71.48
17,200.~6
1,156.I9
70.69
6,971.71
70.&9
7,525.67
280,00
140.00
19,72
315.22
140.72
25.00
223.83
53.68
23.38
64.$0
5!9.25
10,00
109,85
108.93
1,709.87
90.00
3,336,00
142.66
1,427.57
1,621.68
1.136.~5-
2,136.95
223.04
935.27
129.30
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check RegisUr Station:
Check Date Vendor Naee
Invoice Date P/O Date Descriotion
Gross
Discount
Net
Check Totals:
00009177 02111/92 RODERTDE ROBERT 8EIN, iN. FROST & ASSO
1-12024CR 01117/92 0284 10108191ENG SERV. MARS/DEC. CNGS 1991
1-12024 01/17/92 0284 I0/08/91EN6 SERV MAR/DEC. 1991CHB8
00009178 02/11/92 SYSTEll SYSTEN SOURCE, INC.
50842DR 01101192 10484 07117191
508~DDR 01101/92 10618 08106191
50918DR 01/01/92 10727 08112191
51045 01/17/92 10875 09119191
51046 01117/92 lOe4~ 09119191
Check IotaIs:
STORA6E,BRID6E, OVERHEAD,HISC
TACKBOARD,FILES,PANELS,ETC,
DIAGONAL SORTERS;HANGERS
TABLE TOP;BASE!BOO~ASE
BROCHURE RACKS & DIVIDERS
00009179 02111R2 JILLDAN iILLBAN ASSOCIATES
4004175 01101192 01/01/92
4004159 01/01/92 01101192
4004182 01101/92 01101192
Check Totals:
FINAL BILLING/COUNTY TRANSFER
PLANNING/OCT 91 SERVICES
PLANNING/NOV, 1991
00009180 02111/92 XEROX-1 XEROX
145927685 01/20/92 11195 01/03/92
Check Totals:
TONER,DEVELOPERJTAPLES
Check Totals:
Report Totals:
1,621.68
1,136.95-
2,156.95
1,000.00
22L04
~.49
129.30
935.27
286.62
1,577.72
7,704.02
42,041.94
83,185.79
2,134.55
2,134.55
415,713.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1~621.61~--~
1,1~4.95-
2.1~6.95
1,000.00
22~.04
129.30
935.27
284.62
1,577.72
7,704.02
42~041.94
83,195.79
2434,5~
416,713.45
0i151/92 Voucher ~etali Page:
Report iriter CHECK LISTING BY FUND Station:
FUND CHECK NUHBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAHE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
001 00009178 02/11/92 BYBTEH SOURCE, INC. BROCHURE RACKS & DIVIDERS 28a.62
0__01 00009179 02/11/92 ~ILLDAN ASSOCIATES PLANNING/NOV. 1991 ~5,4~9.83
' 00009179 02/11/92 NILLDAN ASSOCIATES PLANNINBIDCT 91 SERVICES 42,041.94
uOl 00009179 02/11/92 tILLDAN ASSOCIATES FINAL OILLING/COUNTY TRANSFER 7,704.02
001 00009180 02/11/92 XEROX TONER,DEVELOPER,STAPLES 2,1~4.53
001 8556 01/30/92 S.C.A.C.E.O. 0.00
00! 146,784.85
019 00009134 01/31/92 CAHPBELLS LIGHTING, SIGN/ELEC REPLACE LAMPS-BALLAST;OLD TNN 885.14
019 000091~7 01/~1/92 KATHLEEN CABSERE REFUND &5.00
019 00009138 01/31/92 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. 792-077-225-S/NOV & DEC 91CH 12,21
019 0000914~ 01/31/92 BLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES; CSD 495.57
019 0000914~ 01131192 OLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS TAPE;RIDBON;LABELSISPLYS;TCSD 1B,BB
019 00009145 01/31/92 HARRINGTON, KEVIN REINS CPRS MEETING 10,00
019 00009146 01/~1/92 TINA HARRISON REFUND/DANCE CLASS 40.00
019 00009148 01/31/92 ICHA Nor, Payroll II2192 42.58
019 00009148 011~1192 ICMA RETIREMENT DEPOSIT/OAN 92 2,7~6.~B
019 00009148 01/31/92 ICMA Normal P/R, 1/16/92 42.58
019 00009151 0!/~1/92 NENDY KYLE REFUND 44,00
019 00009155 01/31/92 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRENIUM) Normal P/R, 1116192 9~.S1
019 00009155 01/31/92 PEAS (HEALTH INSUR. PRENIUM) INSURANCE PREMIUM/JAN 1992 2,931.66
019 00009155 01/31/92 PEAS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIUH) Nor. Payroll 1/2/92 9~.31
019 00009156 01/51f92 PESTMASTER SERVICES PEST BEAU.SPORTS PARK; aUNE 50.00
019 00009157 01/~1192 PETROLANE FUEL (PROPANE) TCSD TRUCK 57.18
Olg 00009159 01/31/92 ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ REFUND CPRS CLASS 10.00
019 00009160 01/31/92 RANCHO ARMY-NAVY STORE SAFETY BOOTS FOR TCSD 18~.13
--AJ9 00009168 01/;I/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO, 714-~45-7418/DEC CALLS BI.47
~ 00009168 01131/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 714-345-7422/DEC. CHBS 81.05
019 00009168 01/31/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 714-292-4020/DEC, CHGB 87.89
019 00009169 01131192 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM RENTALS;COMM.SERVICE 107,40
019 00009170 01/31/92 UNUH LIFE INS, CO. OF AMERICA INSURANCE PREHIUM FOR 3AN 92 396.08
019 00009174 02111192 CR&R INCORPORATED REFUSE COLLECT[ON/OCT-DEC 91 256,27~.20
019
264,836.02
021 00009155 011~1/92 CANYON REPROGRAPHICS COPIES OF CONTRACT DOCS 654,58
02t 00009139 01/31/92 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS SOILS & VALVE TESTS;RCHO CAL. 600,00
021 1,254.58
029 00008999 01/24/92 ROBERT BROTHERTON ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURAL SERV. SPORT PRK BO0.O0
029 00008999 01/24192 ROBERT BROTHERTDN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURAL SEA. SPORT PRK 1,221.00
029 00009175 02111192 6EOTECHNZCAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CIP PROJECT l129;RCHO VISTA 1,817.00
029 ~,8~8,00
01/24/92 Fage:
Fiscal Year: 1992
gity of Teaecuia
gneck ~e;ister
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount
00008993 01121/92 CPRS CA PAR[ & RECREATION SOCIETY
11~92 01118/92 01//~I92 REFERENCE NATERIAL 88.17 0.00
8f
Check Totals: 88.17 0,00
00008994 01/21/92 CPRS CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
11492 01/44192 01114R2=PR, EREGZSTP~T!ON-CONFERENCE 300,4)0 0,00
88,17
0000899,5 -0t/2t 192-CPRSHI PJIUSItlG-BtJREAU
011492 01/14192
Check Totals:
01/14f92 DEPOSIT FOR RD~ RSERV,
SO0,O0 0.00 SO0.O0
198.00 0.00 198.00
Check-Totalss 198.~0 0.4)0
00008996 01121/92 CPRSHB HOUSIll6 BUREAU
011492-1 01114192 01114/92 DEPOSIT RDOfi RESERVATION 198,00 0.00
Check Totals: 198.00 0.00
00008997 01/21/92 CPRSHB HOUSIN6 BUREAU
0t1492-2 01/-14192 0ttI4192--I)EPO$I~-ROOI~-RESERVATION 297.00 0.00
198,00 ,
198.00
198.00
297.,00
Check Totals: 297.00 0.00
93~0899801122192-CPRS -CA-PARK-&*RECREATION SOCIETY
012192 01/21/92 01/21/92 LUNCHEONIEETIN611122192 70.00 0.00
297.00
70.00
Check-Totals: ..................... 70.00 ......... 0.00--
00009088 01/24/92 AEI SECU AEI SECURITY INC.
145 011151920~Ot 10115/91NONITORIN61111592-~I31192 87.50 0.00
Check Totals: 87,50 0.00
00009089 01124/92 AEPCEBA AEP CEDA NORKSNOP
011692 0t1-16192 **Oltt6192-CEQA-*MOR[SHOP-- 155.00 O.OO
70,00
87.50
8~
t55.00 .....
Check Totals:
O0009090-01t24t92-ASCON ASCON HASLERatAILING-S¥STENS
012292 01122192 01/22R2 REPLENISH POSTAGE ACCOUNT
155.00 0.00 155.00
4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00
00009091 01124192 AT&T A T i T
6034-001 01101/92 01/01/92 732-069-6034-001tDEC CHGG
Check Totals:
00009092 01/24/92 ATECH ATECH SOFTMARE
0U792 .... 01/17t92 ....... 01tITt92*MORDPERFECT-UPBATE --
Check--Totals: 4,000.00 0,00
26~.47 0.00
263.47 0.00
81.72
,4,000,00
265.47
263.47
01~72 ........
----0000909~ 01/24192-AVP .... AYP VISION PLAN
012292 01/22/92
Check TotaZs: 81,72
01/22/92 INSURANCE PREHIU~ FOR aAN 92 6~1.40
0.00
0.00
81.72
6II.40
010192 01101192
01!572 0!!!5!~2
--- Check-~okals: ............
01/01/92 REINB. ~ED. IDEP. CAREtDEC,91 1,275.84
0!!!5!~2 ~E~ ~ DEPEN~ RE!~9. ~AN ~2
Check Totals:
00009095 01t24f92 COLONIAL COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
O12292 01/22/92 01/22/92 PREN/U!q FOR ~AN 92
4,2q0.20
1,002.75
0,00
Q .~.
0,00
0,00
· -631,40--
I~275.G4
1~002,75
Check Totals: 1,002.75 0.00 1,002.75
0i;24.72
City of leae~ia
Check Register
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIg
._00009096 01/24192 CONSERCO COMSERCO
A134693 01/14192 11169
Date Description
Gross
12/13191 REPAIR NOTBRCYCLE NELET:P,D,
Discount Net
65.00 0.00 65.00
Check Totals:
00009097 01/29/92 COPYLINE COPY LINE CORPORATION
&7~5 0~/01192 11205 12101191 5ERV~,E-CHRGSIJIE:PAIRS;CI)PIERS
68175 01101R2 11205 12101/91SER Cll COPIER/DEC 91
66222 01101192 11205 12101191SER CltlCOPIESIDEC 91
691-1& 0t~0/-/r2--1t205 t2/01/-91"..ER-CHG/COPIES/-DECJH
65.00 0.00 65.00
28~.16
196.21
145.60
59,46
0.00 28t,18 -
0.00 196.21
0.00 145.60
O,O0 5%48--
00009098 01/24192 DAVLIN DAVLIN
89-23:145 01/16192 10942
8t23:140 01/09192 11212
Check Totals:
09127191 PLANNING CORNILSIONIONa 6, 92
12/17191 VIDEO 12117 COUNCIL NEETIN6
682.47 O.OO 682.47
140.00 O.OO 140.00
600,4)0 O.O0 600,00
Check Totals:
00009099 01/24/92 DENTICAR DENTICARE OF CALIF0RNIA
01~292 01-/22192 01122-/-92-PREMIUN-FOR4Na-92
740.00 0.00 740.00
8&;.O0 Q.O0
Check Totals:
OOOO9100-01124/92-EDD .ENPLOYRENLDEVG. OPNENT-DEPT,
~TRAI.53 10/I0191 10110191 Normal Payrol,lO/lO $2.~2
3UtlEN.5~ 10110191 10110191 Normal Payrol,lOIlO 1,096.98
3TRAI*.54 10124191 lOt24tgl-Norma]-Payr*lOI24 ....... 25.35-
31J!tEM.54 10/24191 10124191 Normal Pay, 10124 862.07
3TRAI.55 10125/91 10/25191Voidl~nuaI Check 0.86
~UI:EM.55 10125lfi 101251-9-1--Voidll~nual-Check 29,16
3TRAI.S6 11107191 11107191 Nor Payroll, 11107 28.08
~UNEH.56 11107/91 11107/91 Nor Payroll, 11/07 960.49
3TRAI.S8 11/21191 1-1~21191Nor~ hyr~l~T-11121 -20,88-
3UNEM.58 11/21/91 11/21/91 Nor. Payroll; 11/21 711.17
~TRAI.59 11/21191 11/21/91Void/Nanual Check 0.62
3UNEN.59 1112U-fi 11J2-~/91 ~oi4ll~anual ~heck 21,24
3TRAI,60 12/05/91 12/05/91 Nor. Payroll, 12/05 20.00
5UNEM.60 12105/91 12/05/91 Nor. Payroll, 12105 680.36
3TRAI~I 12./~9/~-1 12119/V-1-Normal-P~R--/2~*19 13.8;
3UNE~.61 12/19/91 12119191 Normal PIR 12/19 472.9~
863.00 O.OO 863.00
0,00 ~2,32
0.00 1~096,98
O,OO 25.35 ....
O,O0 862.07
O.O0 0,86
0.00 29,-16 .
O.O0 28.08
0.00 960.49
O.OO 20,88 ---
O.OO 711.17
0.00 0.62
0,4)0 2~.24 -
0.00 20.00
0.00 680,36
0.00 1~.8~
0.00 472,9~
00009102 01/24/92 FEDERALE FEDERAL EXPRESS
453163586 01/IU92
Check-Totals:
01/15/92 PDSTAGE
........... 4,976.~
13,00
0.00 .... 4,976,34
0.00 1%00
Check Totals: 13.00
0000~103 01124/92 GETPAGED 6ET PAGED
089~39=lN-01110192-0219 .... 071151~1 .PAGER-REMTAL--JNa 92 ................. 37,50
898639-IN 01110192 0246 09/06/91PAGER RENTALIaNa 92 12.50
8986~9-1 01110192 0228 07101/91PAGER RENTALIaNa 92 150.00
08986~9-241110/92 10987 -*-IOI07/91-PAGER-RENTAL/~Na-92 ....... 12.50---
0.00 13.00
-O,O0
0.00 12.50
0.00 150.00
0,00 12,50------
Check Totals:
.... 0000910~ 01124!92 8R~FFITI GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES
4348 01101192 0303 10101191GRAFFITI REMOVAL/DEC 91
212,50
155,00
0.00 212,50
0.00 155.00
......................................................... Check-Totals: ......
00009105 01/24/t2 GREAT 6.R,E.A.T, TRUST
012292 01122192 01/22/92 PRENIIffi FOR 3AN 92
............... 155,00 0.00 ....... 155,00 .....
800.00 0.00 61)0.00
;&--'::! v=:-, ,ae~ Check R.~-ict=r Station: ~36Q
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date FIU :ate Descrl;tlun 6russ Discount Nmt
Check Totals: 800.00 0.00 800.00
00009106 01/24192 GREEK GREEK, JUNE ~'
121372 .... ~t/0i/~2 --01;~i/92 REIM~FDR*~u'TEL-EIFEN~E .......... 24~.86 G.~6 ....... ~6..
Check Totals: 248,80 O,O0 248,80
O000~I07--OII24~92-6TEBILt,--GTE ,
67&O932E 01107192 01/07/92 714-676-09321DEC, 26,12 O,OO 26,12
00009108 01124192 HAFELITH THONAS HAFELI
011692 01116192
Cheek--Totits:
01116/92 NILEAGE REIMRIllT,1116
2&.t2
50,96 0.00
26.12 .....
50,96
00009109 01/241~2 ~OHMSOMS ~OHMSOM, SHARON
010192
Check Totaim:
-Ol/Oll-t2..dayrunneF-date-book
50.96 0.00
---~0.1~ 0,00--
50,96
30~14 .....
Check Totals:
O0009.l14)-OII24~92-lAMAS~ ~A~ASAKt-OF-~F.J~ECULA
6 011071~2 10399 07108191 OPEN FOR ~OTORCYCLE NAIMT,
30,14 0,00 30,14
428,75 0,00 428,75
Check-Totals=
00009111 01124192 NARILYNS RARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
1946 01/21192 11173 12/17/91 BREAKROOM SUPPLIES
1878D------01121192-i~t73 1211;~91-CREDtT-RENOITAX-OM**PAPER-PROD--
428,75--- O,OO 428,75 ....
92.98 0,00 92.98
8,02--- 0.00-- --8.02-: -
Check Totals:
O0009113-OII341~2JIARTIN ::NART-IILI-CHi~-MAM*CO. ---
011792 01117192 01117192 CURRENT ELECTION IMINUAL FORNS
84,9b 0,00
50,00 0,00
84.96
5(
00009113 01/24/92 MOOREPEG PER MOORE
011692 01/16192
---010192 01101192
Check-Totals=
01116192 EXPENSE REIMR.IJAN 92
OIIOII~ZXPENSE-REIND~.~EC-91--
50,00 -0,00
23,72 O, O0
52,20- 0,00
23,72
-- 52,20 ....
Check Totals:
__.O0009114-OII341~21ATLCARE.NATIOMAL-CA~iER-MOR{L~HO~$
011492 01/14192 01114192 SEMINAR MANASEENT
75,92 0,00 75,92
196,00 O.OO 196.00
VOID
Check-Totals:--*- 196.00-
0,00 ..... 196,00
00009116 01/24192 PAYLESS PAYLESS DRU6 STORES
04401-----011011-~2-i1031 IOI31191FIL~-PROCE~IM61DEC. CH6 --10.96 0.00 10.96 ......
03753 01/15192 11031 10/31/91FILN DEV. 41.90 0.00 41.90
03751 01/10/92 11031 10131191FIL~ PROCESSINS;~aS;24EXPOSUR 20,22 0,00 20,22
0375~----01/14t92-I1031 IOI31/9t-FILM.-PROCESSIMG:B&S;24EIPOSUR ....... 26,31 ............ 0,00 ..............26,31 .....
----00009117 01/24/92 RANCHOBL RANCHO.BLUEPRINT ....
39058 01/14/92 i1011
Check Totals:
10124191 OPEN ACCT;DLUEPRINTSIPUB.MRKS
........................... Check-To:aim: -
00009118 01124t~2 RANCNOIN RANCNO iNDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
110745 01/14/92 I~201 01114192 JAIIITDRIAL SUPPLIES;CITY HALL
99.39 0.00 99.39
65,94 O,OO 65.94
65.94 0.00 ~ ,
379.00 0,00 379.00
Check hie Vendor
Hate
P/O
~'90009119 011241~ SC SI6HS SC 5ZONS
123t~1 0i-/~1,92-0~t0
113091 01101/92 0110
Care
Descri:ti:n
Check TGtals:
HOTICES/NOVEMBER SERVICES
Check Totals:
00009120 01124192 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAH .
OlOlr2 0H~-R2 ~H0~/~2 ~N~ C:|A~C==/AUt!GHg91
010192CR 01101192 01101/92 CREDIT MEHOII~ISG. BANK EZPEN.
0101~2DEC 01101192 01/01192 BANK ~AR6EDIDEC. 91
00009121 01124/f2 ~[TH
011792
Check Totals:
~ITN, ZEMAIDA B.
0t~17/92 O!J,-t~.I.92-MILEAEE-REIMB-!I*!7t92
Check Totals:
O0009t224t,c24/~2-SO-CAL--2-SO,CAL~FORNIA-TELEPiiOME-CQ.
345&OO5E 01/07192 01/07/92 714~45&OOSIDEC. ~
00009123 01124192 TEAMINC T.E.A.M.,
012492 01/24192
Check--Totah:
01/24/92 PARTIAL PAYMENT ON APPROP.
Check Totals:
00009124 01/24/92 TE~ECULA ]eECULA CREEL INN
121991 0t-/0i.~92 OI~Ot~-DErrCHGS
Check Totals:
--O0009125-OI/-24192--TVg&MFES--TEHECULA-VL~-BALLOON4-MINE
011792 01/171r2 01117192 COUMCZL ACT/ON
Check Totals:
0000912& 02/11/92 RIVERSID RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
C91~24-1 01101192 01/01/92 CREelT RETURNED ITEMS
~05779-0 01/-1.0192-t-t187 OII02~92-~ETAL-R(~ T~SS;-t.M.&-SAFETY
10~350-0 01115192 1114~ 1211bl91REDU SIGNATURE PLATE
104097-0 01120192 11208 01107192 PAPER SUPPLIES
Check TGtaZs:
TOTAL
Net
Ue.00
-~15,00
405.00
675.00
7~67
540.00-
255.16
484.8]
~0,16
~0.16
218.55
218,55
2~2~&.00
2~23&.00
160.61
1b0.61
50,000.00
50¥000,00
127.2~-
77.05
75.43
2,749,78
2,775.~;
0,00
0~00
0
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.-00
0.00
0.00
0,~
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
~79.00
315~00
45.00-
405.00
&75,00
7b9~7
540.00-
255.16
484.83
lOr!b
30.1&
218.55
2t8,55
2,23&.00
2,23&.00
160.61
50,000.00
127.23-
77,05
75.43
2J~9.78
2,77LC3
78,~86.68
Report Writer
CHECK LISTING BY FUND
Station:
FUND CHECK NUHBER CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
001--0000.9088 .... 01124192
001 00009089 01/24/92
001 00009090 01124192
001--00009091 01/24192
001 00009092 01/24/92
001 00009095 01/24192
001 0000~094 9L~24/92
001 00009094 01124192
001 00009094 01124192
001 O00090fi 01~24192
001 00009095 01124/92
001 00009096 01124192
001 00009097 01124192
001 00009097 01124192
001 00009097 01124192
001 00009097 01124192
001 00009098 01124192
001 00009098 01124192
001 000~099 01124192
001 00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01124192
~0! 90009100_ 0//24192
001 00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01124192
OOl Q0009100-----01124192
001 00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01124/92
OOl OOO091~ ~1/-24192
001 00009100 01124/92
001 00009100 01124/92
09! O_r'O_~°-J. O0 01/24192
001 00009100 01124/92
001 00009100 01124/92
00! 00009100 Q1/24~2.
001 00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01124192
00! 9000.91~ 01124192
001 00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01/24192
~-001*-00009100 -011241~2.
001 00009100 01/24/92
001 00009100 01/24192
~9~--00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01/24192
001 00009100 01124/92
. 00!
001 00009100 01124/92
001 00009100 01124/92
001--00009100----01/24192. --
001 00009100
001 00009100
001--00009100----
001 00009100
001 00009100
...... 001- 00009100 ....
001 00009100
001 00009100
..... 001-00009100---
01124192
01124192
01124192 ..........
01124192
01124/92
01124/92
01124192
01124/92
01/24/92
AEI-SECURITX-INC.
PiP CEBA NORKSHOP
ASCOM HASLER HAILIMO SYSTEm
AT&T
ATECH SOFTIARE
AVP VISION PLAN
GENEFILAltRICA
BEMEFIT AMERICA
BENEFIT A!tERICA
IENEFI-I-4MiRICA
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
CD~SERCO
COPY LIPE CglItORATlgll
COPY LIME CORPORATION
COPY LINE CORPORATION
COPI-LIME CORPORAIIDI:
DAVLIN
DAVLIN
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA
ERPLDWIEIIT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
ENPLOYMENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
EI~.LDYIIENT-DEVEL..nPE._NT DEPT,
EHPLOYNENT DEVELOPIIENT DEPT,
EHPLOYRENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
-- EIIPLOYHENT-DEVELOPIIENT-DEP-T,
EI~PLOYHENT DEVELOPliNT DEPT,
EMPLOYNENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
ENPLOYMEHLDEUELIDJIEII--~EP1.
E~LOYHENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
EItPLOYHENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
DIPLOYILqlT-DEVELgpwENT-I)EPT.
EWPLOYHENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ERPLOY~HT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
MONI-TORXIt61-l/1593-3131/-92
CEDA WORKSHOP
REPLENISH POSTA6E ACCOUNT
NORDPERFECT UPDATE
INSURANCE PRENIUR FOR mAN 92
I~.IIIL-~ED~DEP.. C~.qE/DEC~91
RE~ & DEPEND REIHB. mAN 92
DEINB. NED. &DEP. CAREIDEC.91
!k'4)-i-DEPEMD-RE-IlIB,-,1AN--92
PRENIU~ FOR ~AN 92
REPAIR HOTDRCYCLE HEL~T;P.D.
.qER CHG COPIERI)EC-tl
SER CHG/~PIES/DEC 91
SERVICE CHRGS;REPAIRS;COPIERS
SER-CHG/COPJESJ-DEC 91
PLANNING COP~ISSXOM/3AN &~ 92
VIDEO 12/17 COUNCIL NEETIN6
PRERIUR-FOR-j~ 92
Nor. Payroll, 12/05
NOrN1 Payrol ~ 10/10
Nor-P4yr-o11*r-11/07
Normal Pay~ 10/24
Nor. Payroll., 12/05
Void/~aoua~Check----
Normal P/R 12/19
Nor, Payroll, 12/05
Horn l-PIR-42/19
Normal PayroL, lO/lO
Nor. Payro11~ 11/21
-- Nor-.Payrol 1~- 11J07
NOrNI Pay~ 10/24
Normal P/R 12/19
EltPLOYItHT-i)EVELOPMENLDEET,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ENPLDYMEHT DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
ENPLOY~EMT-DEV~T--D~T,
ENPLOYENT !fVELOPlfNT DEPT,
ENPLOYREMT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EHPLOWIENT-DEVELDPWENT-DEPT,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EHPLOYRENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EI~PLOYIIENT-DD/ELOPItENT-DEPT,
EHPLOYIIENT DEVELOP~NT DEPT,
ENPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EN*LOYIIENT-DEVELOPWENT. DEP-T,
ENPLOYHENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
EMPLOYltENT DEVELO~ENT DEPT,
-EMPLOYNENT-DEVELOPIIENT-DEP-T,---
ENPLOYNENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
ENPLDY(MT-DEVELOPltENT-DEPT,
ENPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPWENT DEPT,
....... NorNl--Payrol,10110-----
Nor. Payroll, 11121
Normal PIR 12119
Nor~-Piyro11,-12105
NOrN1PIR 12/19
Nor Payroll, 11/07
Mormal--Payrol,lOIlO
Normal Pay~ 10/24
Nor Payro11~ 11107
Nor,-PayrolXr-11121
Nor Payro11~ 11107
NOrNI P/R 12119
NorNI*PayrIOi24
Nor. Payroll, 11/21
Normal P/R 12119
Nor-Payroll,.-lli07
Nor. PayroIl, 12105
Normal PaYt 10/24
--- Normal PIR~ 12119- '-
Normal Payrol,lOIlO
Nor. Payroll, 11/21
Nor. Payro11~ 12105
Nor. Payro11~ 11121
Nor. Payroll~ 12105
Nor Payroll, 11107-
87,50-
155,00
'~0.00
,o;$ .47-
81,72
487.00
147,87-
94! ,O6
574.87
1,2&7
706.25
196,21-
59,46
281.18
145,&0-
140.00
600.00
655,00-
64.57
3.07
..... 34.43 -
0.81
44.95
0,62-
16.81
19.31
"'~! 5.55
0.79
1,55.29 ~*
109.09
0.83
-- 103,3~-
0.24
0,67 --
21,76
0.70
144.40 .-
229.00
~.21
4.26--
23.44
--104.:$7.-
3.02
0.49
1.11
29.71
....... 0,17
43.24
----27 · 1B
1,91
1.48
31.29
4.~6
~e~or~ ~dt~r
FUND CHECK NURDER
CHECK DATE
VENDOR RARE
CHECK LXSTIN6 BY FUND
DESCRIPTZON
Station:
AHOUNT
~! 9~009-100
001 00009100
~'1 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100 -
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
00t---00009-100
001 00009100
001 00009100
,.001 00009100
)1 00009100
001 00009100
001
001 00009100
001 00009100
00! 00009100-
001 00009100
001 00009100
001 O000elO0 *-
001 00009100
001 00009100
001--00009100
001 00009100
001 00009100
91/24/-92
01124192
01124192
0~-t24-/q2
01124192
01124/92
01124192
01124192
01124192
01124192
01124192
01124192
01124192
01124/92
01124192
01124/-92
01124192
01f24/92
01124/92
01124/92
01124192
n. 1124/-92
01/24192
01124192
ERPLOYliENT--DEVELOPRENT-DEPT.
ERPLDYNENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ENPLOYItENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ENPLOYRENT-DEVEt;OPliENT--DEPt,
ERPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
EItP~.OYREu. T 9EVELOPRENT-DEPL
ERPLUYENT DEVELOPt~NT DEPT.
ERPLOY!tENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ENPL~fitENT-K:3/ELOPRENT-K~.
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ERP-UIY(_MT DEI/ELIIPJIENT-DEPT.
EliPLDYNENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
ERPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ERPLUYREHT n. EVELOP-RENT-DEPT.
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT.
EltPLOYNENT DEVELOPI!ENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT-DEVELOPENT-DEP-T.
ENPLDYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ERPLOYREIIT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ENPLOYRENT--DEVELOPRENT-DEPT.
ERPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
EltPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
01t-24/92
01124192
01124192
01J-24192
01124192
01124192
01J24192 ...
01124192
01124192
01124192--
01/24/92
01/24192
011241-t*2
01124192
01/24192
011241~2-
01/24/92
01/24192
.ERPLOYNENT-!)EVELOPRENFDEPT,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT.
ERPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT.
EIIP~DYENT-DEVELOP~IENI-DEPT.
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ERP-LQYRENT-DEVELOPIIENT-I)E*PT.
ENPLOYNENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ERPLQYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT.
ERPLDYIIENT--DEVELOPRENT-DEP-T.
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT,
ERPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT,
E~LOYRENT--I)EVELOPHENT-DEPT~
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPNENT DEPT,
---- ENPLOYRENT-IEVELDPRENT-DEPT.
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT,
E~PLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
___.001--00009100----01124192
001 00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01124192
OD! ~0009100 01124/92
001 00009100 01124192
001 00009100 01/24/92
E!iPJ.OYRENT--DEVELOPREN. T 9EPT,
EltPLOYNENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPNENT DEPT,
ENPLDYRENT-DEVELOPRENT-DEP-T-,-
ENPLDYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
EMPLOYLENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
*Nor-,-PayroiLr-12105
Nor Payroll~ 11107
Nor. Payroll, 11121
Normal-PayrolTlOt&O
Nor Payroll, 11107
Normal Payrol,lOIlO
Nor-PayroH, I~07
Nor. Payroll, 12105
Normal PIR 12119
Nor, Payro}lT--12~05
Voidl~anual Check
Nor. Payro11~ 12105
Nor4al-P-syr-lOI2q
Normal PIR 12119
Normal Pay~ 10124
Nor-,-Payrol~r-t2~05
Nor, Payro11~ 11121
Noraft Pay~ 10124
Nor.,-Payrol~-lt/-21
Normal Payro1910110
Norlal Pay~ 10124
--Norsal-hyrot,lOfIO
Nor Payroll, 11107
Normal PayroIJOIlO
---Nor-Payroll-r-11107
Normal Payrol~lOIlO
Normal Pay~ 10124
VoidlHanuat-Check
Nor Payroll~ 11107
Normal PayrolJO/lO
Nor--P*ayrotlr-l-ll07
Normal Pay~ 10124
Nor. Payroll~ 12/05
--* Normat-Payrol~.lOl~O
Nor. Payroll~ 11121
Normal PIR 12/19
-Nor. l-PayT-lO/24
Nor. Payro11~ 12105
Nor. Payra11~ 11121
- Nor~-Payrolt~-12105
Norul Payrol~10/lO
Void/Nanual Check
Nor.-Payroll-r12105
Norul Pay~ 10124
Nor Payro11~ 11107
Norsal-PJR--12119
Nor. Payroll~ 12/05
Nor. Payro11~ 11121
001--00009100 -01124192
001 00009100 01/24192
001 00009100 01/24192
---~001--00009100 .... 01/24192
001 00009100 01124192
/--q01 00009100 01/24/92
~-- ,01 - 00009100 ..... 01124192 ............. ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT-DEPT, .-
001 00009100 01/24/92 ENPLDYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
001 00009100 01/24/92 ERPLDYRENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT.
001. 00009100 01t24/92 - ENPLDYNENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT.
ENPLOYRENT-DEVELOPNENT-DEPT, ............... Nor,--PayroZlr 12105
ERPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ENPLOYRENT-DEVELOPNENT*DEPT,- .....
ENPLOYRENT DEVELOPRENT DEPT,
ENPLOYENT DEVELOPLENT DEPT,
Normal Payrol,lO!lO
Normal PIR 12119
Normal Pay,-lOI24
Nor Payroll~ 11/07
Normal P/R 12119
Normal Payrol~lO/lO
Normal P/R 12/19
Nor. Payroll, 11/21
Normal Pay, 10/24 .............
O ,25 -
138.94
0.48
O~S2 -
0,68
;$1,49
q,08--
7,79
O,tl
0,27--.
21,24
1.21
182.94
0.27
7.81 -
28,15
28.21
t5,'$, ,52--
I2,57
:~,21
2.27
23.90
55A3---
96,62
0,60
~.29,16 ~
105.51
21~.45
51.27-
50,26
$8,17
--4.17-
27.54
5.29
---4.10--
0.57
0.73
---221,37-
0.86
---41,26 -
4.60
77,66
16,69-
2,24
141,72
5,9D
104 .~7
8.29
156.37
2.28
:LgO
--- 0,9:~
2B.25
90.15
* 4.12
01124I~ .......
Report inter
FUND CHECK NUMBER CHEC[ DATE VENDOR NAME
Voucher Detail
ChiC[ LISTING 9~ FuND
DESCRIPTION
ANOUN1
--001--00009102 01/24192 FEDERAL EXPRESS
001 0000910~ 01124192 GET PAGED
001 00009103 01124192 SET PAGED
001---0000910I 01124R2 GET-PAGED
001 00009103 01/24192 GET PAGED
001 00009104 01124192 6RAFFIT1REHOVAL SERVICES
001 00009105 0],/-241-92 G.P.E.A.T. TRUST
001 0000910& 01124R2 GREEK, JUNE
001 00009108 01/24192 THO~AS HAFELI
--001 ,qO0~t-lO 0t-/-241-92 KANASAKI-OF-TERECULA
001 00009111 01124192 NARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
001 00009111 01/24192 HARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
00! .nOOOS&-12 01~24/92 I~ARTIN-&-CHAPNAN-CO.
001 00009115 01/24192 PEG MOORE
001 00009115 01/24192 PEG MOORE
00! 00009t~I----01~24~92 PEG*4qOORE
001 00009114 01/24192 NATIONAL CAREER ~ORKSHUPS
00~91-t6 9t¢241-92
001 0000911& 01/24192
001 0000911& 01124R2
011-24/-92
001 00009118 01124192
001 00009119 01/24192
~001--000091-19 01t24R2
001 00009119 01124R2
001 00009120 0II24192
001 000091.20 .n11241.92
001 00009120 01/24/92
001 00009121 01124192
00! 00009L22 ~01.124/-92
001 00009123 01/24/92
001 00009124 01124192
001--00009125 -01124192
001 00009126 02/L1/92
001 0000912& 02/11R2
001--00009126 021111-92 ~ . -
001 0000912& 02111192
001
--- 019
019
019
.... 019
019 00008995 01121192
0t9--00008994 01-/21192
019 00008995 01/21/92
019 00008996 01/21/92
--019=-00008997 *01/21/92
019 00008998 01/22/92
019 00009095 01/24/92
--01~---00009094------*01/24t92.----
019 00009094 01124192
019 00009095 01/24/92
----019--00009099- 01/24/92- · -
0!9 00009100 01/24/92
00009100 01124/92
-00009100--- 01/24/92
00009100 01/24/92
00009100 01/24/92
00009100 01124/92
PAYLESS-DRUg-STORES
PAYLESS DRUG STORES
PAYLESS DRUG STORES
RANCHO-BI. UEPRINT
RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
SC SIGNS
SC-StGNS
SC S IGNS
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
SECUR I.T~--PAC I Ft C-NAT t ORAL-JAN
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL DAN
SNITH~ ZENAIDA B,
SO ,CAL-I FORM I A-TELEP HONE-CO,
T,E,A,H,; INC
TEMECULA CREEK INN
TENECULA-VL*Y-BALLODN4-M]NE
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE-OFFICE-SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
CA-PARK-& RECREATION-SOC*IETY--
HOUS/N6 BUREAU
HOUSING BUREAU
*HOUSIN6-BUREAU
CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
AVP VISION PLAN
BENEFIT-AMERICA
BENEFIT AHERICA
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
DENTICARE OF-CALIFORNIA .......
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPENT DEFT,
ENPLOYHENT DEVELOPENT DEFT,
EHPLOYNENT DEVELOPMENT DEFT,- .....
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEFT,
ENPLOYHENT DEVELOPMENT DEFT,
· EHPLOYHENT DEVELOPMENT ~EPT,
POSTAGE,
PAGER RENTAL JAN t2
PAGER R~TAL/JAN 92
PAGER-RENTAL-/-aAN 92
PAGER RENTAL/JAN 92
6RAFFIT] REROVALIDEC 91
PREHItlM--FOR-,IAN-92
REIMB FOR HOTEL EXPEMGE
MILEAGE REIXB!II7,111&
OPEH FOR-NOTORCYCLE-WAINT.
BREAKROOM SUPPLIES
CREDIT REHO/TAX ON PAPER PROD
CURRENT-ELECTION--MANUAL--FORMS
EXPENSE REINB. DEC 91
EXPENSE REIHB./JAN 92
EXPENSE-REINBT-DEC--91
SEMINAR MANAGERENT
F~LM-DEV.
FILX PROCESSINGIDEC.CH6
FILM PROCESSING{BiS;24EXPOGUR
-OPEN*ACCT{BLUEPRINTSIPUB.MRKS
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES;CITY HALL
NOTICES/NOVEMBER SERVICES
NOTICESIDECENBER-*I991---
CRFBIT NEHO/DEC, 1991
BANK CHARGES/DEC, 91
~ANK-CHARGESIAUGUST-t991
CREDIT MENO/NISC. DANK EXPER.
MILEAGE REIMB 1117192
--714~4~O051DEC,-CHGS
PARHAL PAYENT ON APPROP,
DEC CNGS
COUNCIL-ACTION
METAL RIM TAGS; BLDG,& SAFETY
CREDIT RETURNED
-REDU-SIGNATURE PLATE
PAPER SUPPLIES
REFERENCE MATERIAL
PREREGISTRATION-CONFERENCE
DEPOSIT FOR ROOM RESERV.
DEPOSIT ROOM RESERVATION
DEPOSIT**ROON RESERVATION
LUNCHEONIMEETZNGIl122192
INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR JAN 92
REINB."HED.-&DEP.-'CAREtDEC.-91
NED i DEPEND REIMB. JAN 92
PREMIUM FOR JAN 92
-PRENIUK FOR JAN 92 .................
Normal Pay, 10/24
Normal PaVrolelO/lO
Nor. Payroll, 12/05 ..........
Normal P/R 12/19
Nor, Payroll, 12/05
Normal Pay, 10/24
13.00
-~ 37.50
- 12.50
12~50
75.00
155.00
611.00
248.90
50.96
42B.75
92.98
B.02-
43.15
23.72
~ .05
196.00
4t.90
10,96
46,53
65,94-
379.00
405,00
515,00
45.00-
540.00-
50.1~
218,55
2,25b.00
l&O.&l
50,000.00-
77.0~
127.23-
75.43
2,749,78
73842.58
88.17
500.00-
198.00
198.00
297.00
70.00
144.40
--.555.10
806,00
296,50
208.00
,9.89
197.84
189.49
5.79
~.57
Re!~ort Writer
FUND CHEC[ NUMBER CHEC[ DATE
VENDOR NAHE
Voucher PEta~
gHECK LISTINS 8Y FUND
DESCRIPTION
Page:
Station:
AMOUNT
0~L--00009100 01124R2
~01~ 00009100 01/21/~2
~19 0000~100 01/2(li2
01-9--0000t100 0112&R2
019 0000~10~ 01/2~/f2
019 00001105 01/2U~2
017 Q000~107 011241-~2
0~ 0000t10~ 01/241~2
01.9
E~PLOYENT-DEVELOPMENT-J)ERT,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPNENT DEPT,
E~PLOYMENT-DEVELOPMENT-DEP;,
GET PABED
G,R,E,A,T, lRUST
GTE
3011SON, SHARON
Nor.-PayroiX.,-11121
Normal P/R 12/19
Nor Payroll, 11/07
Nor-.-PtVrotl, !1~-1
PABER RENTAL/JAN 92
PREMIUM FOR 3AN 92
714~&7&-OV~21DEC.
dayrunner date book
---- 6.64
5.55
222.!S
22o.71
75.0C.
llO.OO
26.12
30,14
78486.68
ITEM NO.
4
APPROVAL: _S~,,,
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
February 11, 1992
Designation of Nuisance Abatement Hearing Officer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution designating the Judicial Arbitration
and Mediation Services, Inc. (J.A.M.S.) as hearing officer for Nuisance Abatement
Proceedings.
DISCUSSION:
At its December 4, 1990 meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-24,
adding Chapter 6.14 to the Temecula Municipal Code establishing Nuisance
Abatement proceedings.
Pursuant to Section 6.14.007 of the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, once a hearing
is scheduled to determine whether such a public nuisance exists, such hearing shall
be conducted by a hearing officer who shall be determined by Resolution of the City
Council.
The City Attorney has interviewed Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.
(J.A.M.S.) and recommends to the City Council the use of J.A.M.S. as the hearing
officer for nuisance abatement proceedings. This recommendation is based on the
following:
Participants of the J.A.M.S. program are comprised of retired Judges
who are knowledgeable in the area of municipal law, especially municipal
code violations;
The presence of a neutral third party hearing officer determining whether
a public nuisance exists is more likely to withstand a possible legal
challenge by the property owner than a hearing officer who is directly
City Council/City Manager
February 11, 1992
Page 2
employed and associated with the City. Moreover, the presence of a
retired judge at the nuisance abatement hearings creates a more serious
setting and, hopefully, voluntary compliance when the alleged code
violator is present at the hearing.
The J.A.M.S. program has been implemented in the Cities of Dana Point and Mission
Viejo where it has been largely successful in public nuisance abatement.
The cost of a hearing officer through the J.A.M.S. procedure is currently $300 per
hour. This includes hearing time and orders. While the cost is substantial, it is
believed that for the reasons started above that this cost will be more effective than
a city official as hearing officer. This process also would well avoid the more costly
approach of court litigation. There may also be less incentive for an appeal to the City
Council when a decision is rendered by a third party. Finally, should the property
owner fail to comply with the abatement order, the full City cost of nuisance clean-up,
including all administrative costs (including J.A.M.S. costs) will be assessed as a lien
against the property.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The number of cases processed will determine the total fiscal impact, however, the
per hour cost is $300 for services rendered. There currently is adequate funds in
Building and Safety's budget to cover any costs incurred without further appropriation
of funds for this purpose.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
v:~,wP~ende.reP\ooom0203 .rl~
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING JUDICIAL
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES, INC.
(J.A.M.S.) AS HEARING OFFICER FOR NUISANCE
ABATEMENT PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula established nuisance abatement
proceedings pursuant to Chapter 6.14 of the Municipal Code of the City of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.14.007 of Chapter 6.14, the hearing to determine
whether a public nuisance exists shall be conducted by a hearing officer who shall be determined
by Resolution by the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Temecula does hereby resolve, order, and determine as follows:
SECTION 1. That ludieial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (J.A.M.S.) be
designated as the hearing officer to conduct public nuisance hearings.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 1 lth day of February, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
231
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 92-xx adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1 lth day of February, 1992, by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/P, esos 23 1
IT:EM NO.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
February 11, 1992
Combining Balance Sheet December 31, 1991 and the Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Six Months
Ended December 31, 1991
That the City Council:
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991 and
the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the
Six Months Ended December 31, 1991.
Approve a transfer of e50,000 from Consulting and Development Review to
Traffic Engineering.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited
activity of the City for the six months ended December 31, 1991. A transfer of
e50,000 for Traffic Engineering has been requested.
The mid-year budget adjustments have been reflected on the attached financial
statement.
Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity.
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes
Balance for the Six Months Ended December 31, 1991
Attachment "A"
in Fund
ATTACHMENT A
BUDGET TRANSFERS
TRANSFER
FROM:
A/C No.
Engineering/
Public Works
001-110-999-
42-5248
001-163-999-
42-5249
I Descrip.
Consulting
Development
Review
I Amount
$30,000.00
$20,000.00
TRANSFER
TO:
A/C No.
001 - 165-999-
42-5406
Descrip.
Traffic
Engineering
Amount
$50,000.00
r-
o """"'~E
·
o "'l-m,-~
~ 0
(J
=1
0~3~ ~ z
ITEM
NO.
6
CITY MANAGER ~,~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
February 11, 1992
SUBJECT:
Mid-Year Review of FY 1991-92 Budget
Prepared by:
Grant M. Yates, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve the Mid-Year Budget as set forth in Attachment "A", which the
Finance Committee has reviewed and approved.
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION No. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
DISCUSSION: A comprehensive review of projected revenues and
expenditures for the 1991-92 fiscal year has been conducted. This review included
an analysis of revenues received to date, and an updated projection of revenues
anticipated for the fiscal year. All department heads and the City Manager's Office
have reviewed year to date expenditures and have provided appropriate adjustments.
The result of this analysis is the attached Mid-Year update to the Fiscal Year 1991-92
Budget.
REVENUES: We expect that General Fund revenues will increase by
$62,013 over initial projections. General Fund revenues are projected at
$12,279,240 for the 1991-92 fiscal year and are detailed as follows:
Property Tax
Original estimates of Property Tax receipts remain consistent with year-end
projections; therefore, no revision is recommended.
Sales and Use Tax
Sales Tax revenue in the City is projected to increase approximately 12.7% or
$572,853 over original estimates. This increase is directly attributed to the opening
of the new Costco and K-Mart stores.
Franchise Fees
Revenue projections are up $47,428 because of a one-time payment due from one
franchise agreement and because of the addition of Jones Intercable, a new cable
television franchise.
Transient Occupancy Tax
Revenues are projected to be $45,622 less than anticipated due to decreases in travel
due to the current recession.
Development Related Fees
The state of the economy has had a measurable impact on development fees collected
by the City. The revenue estimates for Building, Planning, and Engineering are revised
downward by $262,096, $6,400, and $318,000 respectively.
Projections in Special Revenue include:
Gas Tax Fund
There are no projected changes in original estimates.
Transportation Funds
The amount of local transportation funds available to the City have been decreased
approximately 62% or $422,487 from original estimates. This decrease is attributable
to the climate of the state economy.
EXPENDITURES
Noteworthy changes in City expenditures are as follows:
Personnel Services
At the time the 1991-92 annual operating budget was adopted, we did not have
actual rates for Worker's Compensation Insurance. Consequently, several City
Departments will require additional funds to cover the Worker's Compensation
premiums.
Overall, the Mid-Year Budget is being decreased by $32,338 for Personnel Services.
This can be attributed to the deletion of the Administrative Assistant position in the
City Manager's Office.
Operations And Maintenance
Overall, the Mid-Year Budget is being decreased $181,695 for operations and
maintenance. The Planning Department has requested $88,941 to cover the invoices
from the General Plan Consultants. The Consultants estimate that many tasks will be
completed in this fiscal year and not the next as previously anticipated. The overall
cost of the General Plan Consultants has not increased. In addition, the Engineering
Department will be spending $316,400 less in consulting fees than originally
estimated due to an anticipated decrease in development activity for the year.
The majority of the mid-year increases are being requested in Non-Departmental and
are attributable to unanticipated expenses relating to the move into the new City Hall
building. These additional requests include:
9,664
13,762
40,000
51,233
14,400
35,560
15,000
10,000
Additional request for phone service
Cost of monthly janitorial services
Cost of routine office supplies
Office rent
Xerox machine lease
Utilities
Microfiche/microfilm machines
Radio equipment for Public Works
During FY 1992 the unreserved fund balance in the General Fund has been impacted
by several factors including: the purchase of land totaling $1,425,000, and the
carryover of the encumbrance of the Breathing Apparatus Truck of $208,000. The
Unreserved Fund Balance as of June 30, 1991 was $4,499, 162. The Unreserved
Fund Balance on June 30, 1992 is anticipated to be ~797,374.
FISCAL IMPACT: Amend the FY 1991-92 Annual Operating Budget as outlined in
Attachment "A"
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" Mid-Year Budget Review of Annual Operating
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1991-92
Attachment "B" Personnel Allocation by department
Resolution No. 91- to amend FY 1991-92 Operating Budget
Z
Z
Z
0
~000~[-.
ATTACHMENT "B"
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION BY DEPARTMENT
(Full-Time Equivalents listed)
1991-92
Authorized
Department: CITY COUNCIL
Councilmembers
5.00
Department Total
5.00
Department: CITY MANAGER
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Administrative Assistant
Executive Secretary
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
Information System Manager
Network Administrator
Senior Management Analyst
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Department Total
10.00
Department: CITY CLERK
City Clerk
Administrative Secretary
Secretary
Office Assistant
Minute Clerk
Duplicating Technician
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
.50
1.00
Department Total
6.50
Department: FINANCE
Finance Officer
Chief Accountant
Senior Management Analyst
Senior Accountant
Administrative Secretary
Account Technician
Account Clerk
Office Assistant
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
Mid-Year
Amended
.00
.00
.00
.00
(1.00)
.00
.00
.00
(1.00)
.00
1.00
(1.00)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
9.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
.50
1.00
6.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
Department Total 10.00 .00 10.00
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION' BY DEPARTMENT
(Full-Time Equivalents listed)
1991-92
Authorized
Department: PLANNING
Director of Planning
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Assistant Planner
Building/Planning Technician
Administrative Secretary
Secretary
Office Assistant
1.00
2,00
,00
,00
1,00
1,00
,00
2,00
Department Total
7.00
Department: BUILDING AND SAFETY
Chief Building Official
Senior Building Inspector
Code Enforcement Officer
Building Inspector
Building/Planning Technician
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
1,00
2,00
1,00
3,00
2.00
1,00
1,00
Department Total
11,00
Department: ENGINEERING
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Principal Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
Permit Engineer
Senior Public Works. Inspector
,50
1,00
,50
,34
1,00
,33
,00
Department Total
3,67
Mid-Year
Amended
,00
,00
2,00
1,00
,00
,00
1,00
,00
4.00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
(,3O)
(,25)
(,5O)
(,34)
(1,00)
(,13)
1,60
(,92)
1,00
2,00
2,00
1,00
1.00
1,00
1,00
2,00
11,00
1,00
2,00
1,00
3,00
2,00
1,00
1.00
11,00
,20
,75
,00
,00
.00
,20
1,60
2,75
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION BY DEPARTMENT
(Full-Time Equivalents listed)
Department: PUBLIC WORKS
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Principal Engineer
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
Permit Engineer
Traffic Technician
Senior Public Works Inspector
Lead Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Supervisor
Maintenance Worker
1991-92
Authorized
.40
.00
.30
.00
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
Department Total
2.03
Department: COMMUNITY SERVICES
Director of Community Services
Administrative Secretary
Landscape Development Assistant
Landscape Supervisor
Maintenance Superintendent
Maintenance Worker
Office Assistant
Recreation Leader
Recreation Superintendent
Senior Maintenance Worker
Senior Planner
Senior Recreation Services Coordinator
Development Assistant
Senior Development Assistant
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.00
.00
.00
Department Total
16.00
Mid-Year
Amended
.40
.25
.70
2.00
.47
1.00
.40
1.00
1.00
.00
7.22
.00
.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
.00
.00
1.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
.80
.25
1.00
2.00
.80
1.00
.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.25
1.00
1.00
.00
.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
18.00
:RESOLUTION 92-
A RESOLLrrION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEM!~CULA AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 1991-92 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN
F, gFIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the FY 1991-92 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby
amended in accordance with the "Mid-year Review of Annual Operating Budget, Fiscal Year
1991-92" attached herein as Attachment A.
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTF~D this l lth day of February, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/R~sos 227 ~'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF EMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the llth day of February, 1992
by the following vote of the Council:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/Relol 227
ITEM NO.
7
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
nt of Public Works
February 11, 1992
Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 23128
PREPARED BY:
Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23128, AUTHORIZE the
reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the maintenance bonds in the reduced
amounts, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
On February 21, 1989 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Radnor/Sunland/Green Meadows Partnership
877 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
for the improvement of streets and installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying
the subdivision agreements were surety bonds, issued by Federal Insurance Company as
follows:
Bond No. 8118 40 87A in the amount of $362,500.00 to cover street improvements·
Bond No. 8118 40 87A in the amount of $87,500.00 to cover water improvements.
Bond No. 8118 40 87A in the amount of $83,000.00 to cover sewer improvements.
Bond No. 8118 40 87B, in the amounts of $181,250.00, $43,750.00, and
$41,500.00 respectively, to cover material and labor.
Page 1 pwO2\agdrpt~0211\TR23128 01 2992
The following items have been completed by the developer, or his engineer, in accordance
with the approved plans:
1. Required street, sewer, and water improvements.
The affected streets are Villa Venicia, Cannes Court, Adian Court, Salerno Road, and a portion
of Milano Road.
The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the
County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff, and the Department of Public Works
recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate
to reduce these bonds as follows:
$293,625.00
Streets: $78,750.00
Water: $74,700.00
Sewer:
The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for
one (1) year guarantee period as follows:
~36,250.00
Streets: $8,750.00
Water: e8,300.00
Sewer:
TOTAL
$53,300.00
The developer has submitted Maintenance Bond Nos. 8130-89-80, 8130-89-81, and 8130-
89-82 designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of these bonds
will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds
for these items of work. The Material and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City
Council exoneration.
AC:clh
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Maintenance Bond
Subdivision Agreement
Page 2 pwO2\agdrpt\O211\TR23128 012992
~ ( ~AIORTif 6ENERA~
'~KEAIRN Y ROR D
SEC, 30 ; T TS ; R2'W ~ SBBM
VICINITY
MAP
NO. SCALE
AGREEMENT REGARDING
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the
CiTY OF TEMECUL~, herelnafter calied *:CITY", and Radnor/SunZan~/
hereinafter called ,CONTRACTOR". Green Meadows Partnership
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONTRACTOR
have entered into s series of agreements snd CONTRACTOR has
submitted a serles of bonds in connection with conslderation by the
County of Riverside of final map approval February '24, 1989.
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on
December 1, 1989;
WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the
acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has
permitted subdivlders to use the existing County Subdivislon
Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms;
WHEREAS, certaln references in the County forms
incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions;
NOW, THEREFORE. it is agreed between CiTY and
CONTRACTOR as follows:
1. All references to the uCountY of Riverside"
contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR
concerning Tract 23128 are now defined as referring to the
*'City of Temecula".
2. All references to the "Riverslde County Road
Commissioner" contained in any documents between CITY and
CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 23128 are now hereby defined
to refer to the "City Englneer"-
3. All references to any other Riverside County offices
or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 23128
now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions.
'C'ORT] A"'dT"0~' NAME
R S
Dated/~'3/'~/ By: James H. Hatter, Sr. Vice President
(Print Signatore's Name)
CITY OF TEMECULA
Dated
RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR
Dated
JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM
SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CALIFORNI }
lss.
COUNTY O~ ~, u..-:,~
, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared
and
. personally known to me (.er-pfeved-io.me
who..ou,.d,h..,,h,.,ns, rum.n..
-~4' . )J urea President arnd ' ' ' "' ' ) on behalf of ~-~-~%.~.,-,~
the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that .. A
(This area for official notarial sent)
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
MAINTENANCE BOND
Bond No. 8 130-89-82
Amount $ 8,300.00.
That we,
Know All Men By These Presents,
RADNOR/SUNLAND/GREEN M~kDOWS PARTNERSHIP
(hereinafter called the Principal),
as Principal, and the FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Warren, New Jersey, a corporation duly organized under
the laws of the State of Indiana, (hereinafter calle(J the Surety), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
CITY OF T~Cb'LA, CALIPORNTA
43 174 Business Park Drive
Temect, la, CA 92590 (hereinafter called the Obligee),
in the sum of EIGHT THOUSL-'~TD THI~E Wu'I~)I~D L, ND 00/!00 Dollars
($ 8,300.00. -, ...... ), for the payment of which:we, the said Principal and the said Surety, bind ourselves, our
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals and dated this 23rd day of December
A.D. nineteen hundred and ninety-one
WHEREAS, the said Principal has heretofore entered into a contract with said Obligee dated
19 , for Sewer System work relating to Tract Map Number 23128
; and
WHEREAS, the said Principal is required to guarantee the Sever System
installed under said contract, against defects in materials or workmanship, which may develop during the period
of One (l) year 7,
Form 15-02-0075 (Ray, 4-90) (over) P~INTEO
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the Principal shall faithfully carry
out and perform the said guarantee, and shall, on due notice, repair and make good at its own expense any and
all defects in materials or workmanship in the said work which may develop during the period o£ One ( ] ) year.
or shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the said Obligee all loss and damage which said Obligee may sus-
tain by reason of failure or default of said Principal so to do, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise
shall remain in full force and effect.
RADNOR/SUNLAND/GREEN MEADOWS PARTNERSHIP
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
MAINTENANCE BOND
Bond No. 8130-89-81
Amount $8,750.00.
That we,
Know All Men By These Presents,
RADNOR/SUNLAND/GREEN MEADOWS PARTNERSHIP
(hereinafter called the Principal),
as Principal, and the FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Warren, New Jersey, a corporation duly organized under
the laws of the State of Indiana, (hereinafter called the Surety), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
43~74 Business Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92590 (hereinafter called the Obligee),
in the sum of EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 Dollars
($8,750.00. -), for the payment of which we, the said Principal and the said Surety, bind ourselves, our
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals and dated this
A.D. nineteen hundred and ninety-one
23rd day of December
WHEREAS, the said Principalhas heretoforeentered into a contract with said Obligee dated
19 ,for Water System work relating to Tract Map Number 23128.
; and
WHEREAS, the said Principal is required to guarantee the Water System
installed under said contract, against defects in materials or workmanship, which may develop during the period
of .One ( 1 ) year.
,o,,. ,s-o2-ooTs (..,..-~o) (over)
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the Principal shall faithfully carry
out and perform the said guarantee, and shall, on due notice, repair and make good at its own expense any and
all defects in materials or workmanship in the said work which may develop during the period of one (1) year.
or shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the said Obligee all loss and damage which said Obliges may sus-
tain by reason of failure or default of said Principal so to do, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise
shall remain in full force and effect.
RADNOR/SUNLAND/GREEN MEADOWS PARTNERSHIP
~~ ~-~
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Lorraine T. Masanfs, Ar. Corney-fn-FacC
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Know ell Men by these Presents. That the FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. 15 Mountain View Road. Warren, New Jersey, an Indiana CorDora-
tion, has constituted and appointecl, and does hereby constitute and appoint John H. Peeler, Jr., Joseph P. Burke, Walter J.
Potter, Lorraine T. Masanis, Patrick Gilmore and Raymond A. Watson of Philadelphia, Pennsyly~nia-
each its true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact to execute under such designation in its name and to affix its corporate seal to and deliver for and on its behalf as surety
thereon or otherwise, ponds of any of the following classes. to-wit:
1. Bonds and Undertakings {other than Bail Bonds) filed in any suit, matter or proceeding in any Court, or filed with any Sheriff or Magistrate, for the doing
or not doing of anything specified in such Bond or Undertaking.
2. Surety bonds to the United States of America or any agency thereof, including those required or permitted under the laws or regulations relatin; to Customs
or Interna Revenue; License and Permit Bonds or other indemnity bonds under the laws, ordinances or regulations of any State, City. Town, Vdlage, Board
or other body or organization, public or private; bonds to Transportation Companies, Lost Instrument bonds; Lease bonds, Workers' Compensation bondS,
MiscellaneOus Surety bonds and bonds on behalf of Notaries Public, Sheriffs, Deputy Sheriffs and similar public officials.
3. Bonds on behalf of contractors in connection with bids, proposals or contracts.
In witness Whereof, the stud FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY has, pursuant to its By-Lay4. cause~ these proseras to i)e gagned 13y ill V:ce President incl Aliastint Secretary ina Ill COqX}q~ ~
to~Nrmoamx. am~ 1st aayoe May ~9 90
Co~eme
STATE OF NEW JERSEY } SS.
County of Bomereet
County of Bomereet } as'
NICOLEI'FE T. PASCULU
c.,amncA'rmN Nmfy ~ SIe~ d New .key
No. 2066518
Coeeniuien Expires October 2, 1994
~heunde~rs~A~ms~nt~ec~t~ftheFF~DER~L~N~URAN~COMPANY.~he~wc~n~/m~me~wmgis~tr~em~cerptfr~mme~H-awsoethesaidC°mpanyuadeprsawitshmei'0keaws
on March 2. 1910 and Utll the By-Law is in full force Ind effect.
"ARTICLE XVIII.
Sectm~2~ll~nds~un~e~km~c~`wac~nd~me~inmmments~h~th~nasa~xwe~and~n~xh~f~the~mw~aichitw~mh~zee~wo~its chNter tom.may and shad beeeeuled
in mn~m~n~9~n~n~f~MC~e~ny~ttt~y~heCh~arm~n~M~e~e~t~in1rsr~NPw~id~ft~aP~t~i~j~i~ye~heaeg~toryOr ln AIiilllnt se~elllp/'undlf fitlw flllllglNI
~e~mexc~xth~any~ie~tmefe~f~r~to~e~;gna~in~nym~4Nuten~UteB~deiDimc~eqm~the~~in~~~as~
hxmSeaa~n3~Nd~w~ra~ye~c~te~ny~uch~xmd~nee~akmgm.ether(~iNiga~naspmvid~din~Uchm~4~p~v~f~i~"T.~y.
~tanA~8etom~:h1e~MN'R~jmn~wi~theSecmtaryet8n/~aim~n~Seemtory~u~mea~mm~e¢~NesThe~ignmumeisuch~fi~mm8yheengr8v~xtmedm~s'Thel"gnlumels
~ithe~wmg{Nfice~:~ViceChajfman~Pmek~enLany~:cePmmaem~anyAema~amV:cePmaiden~anySecmto~/~any**asman~Secmtmyanam~~M~w~~
mme~i~ne~nysuchp~ner~e~1~mey~tcefti~ca~eimeenngeuchfuemmiie~agnmum~tf~c~mie~em~hell~ae~~m~~~~M~~m
segna~umandi~c~mNie~eai~ha~bev~idandtxndingu~x3etheC~m~anywithre~4Nctto~nyim3ed~rmt~wfuch~m~tt~ctm:i:~
Gr4nundermyMMandlt:esee4dsajeCompanymWarmn, NJ.,this
ANIk
For~21-TU~i . ~,=,~ 4-90)GENEFAL
c e~,~,,~~j~9 1
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
MAINTENANCE BOND
Bond No. 8 ! 30-89-80
Amount $36,250.00.
Know All Men By These Presents,
That we, RADNOR/SUNLAND/GREEN MEADOWS PARTNERSHIP
(hereinafter called the Principal),
as Principal, and the FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Warren, New Jersey, a corporation duly organized under
the laws of the State of Indiana, (hereinafter called the Surety), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
CITY OF TE.MECULA, CALIFORNIA
43 174 Business Park Drive (hereinafter railed the Obligee),
Temecula, CA 92590
· le sum of THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100. Dollars
($ 36,250.00.- ...... ), for the payment of which we, the said Principal and the said Surety, bind ourselves, our
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals and dated this
A.D. nineteen hundred and ninet:y-one
23rd day of December
WHEREAS, the said Principalhas heretofore entered into a contract with said Obligee dated
19 ,for Streets and Drainage work relating Co Trace Map Number 23128.
;and
WHEREAS, the said Principal is required to guarantee the Streets and Drainage
installed under said contract, against defects in materials or workmanship, which may develop during the period
of one (l) year.
Fe.~ ~5-02-0075 (Rev. 4-90) (Over) P.,NTED
USA
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the Principal shall faithfully carry
out and perform the said guarantee, and shall, on due notice, repair and make good at its own expense any and
all defects in materials or workmanship in the said work which may develop during the period o£ one ( ] ) year.
or shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the said Obligee all loss and damage which said Obligee may sus-
tain by reason of failure or default of said Principal so to do, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise
shall remain in full force and effect.
RADNOR/SUNLAND/GREEN MEADOWS PARTNERSHIP
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
By: ~..~.3 · '
Ma -in-Fact
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Know ell Men by these Presents, That the FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Mountain View Road, Warren. New Jersey, an Indiana Corpora-
tion, has constituted and appointed, and does hereby constitute and al;)point John H. Pooler, Jr., Joseph P. Burke, Walter J.
Pof_~er, Lorraine T. Masanis, Patrick Gilmore and Raymond A. Watson of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-
each its true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact to execute under such designation in its name and to affix its corporate seal to and deliver for and on its behalf as surety
thereon or otherwise. bonds of any of the following classes. to-wit:
1. Bonds and Undertakings (other than Bail Bonds) filed in any suit, matter or proceeding in any Court, or filed with any Sheriff or Magistrate. for the doing
or not doing of anything specified in such Bond or Undertaking.
2. Surety bonds to the United Sites of America or any agency thereof, including those required or permitted under the laws or regulations relating to Customs
or Internal Revenue; License and Permit Bonds or other indemnity bonds under the laws, ordinances or regulations of any Site. City, Town, Village, Board
or other body or organization, public or private; bonds to Tmnsbortation Companies, Lost Instrument bonds; Lease bonds, Workers' Compensation bonds,
Miscellaneous Surety bonds and bonds on behalf of Notaries Public, Sheriffs, Deputy Sheriffs and similar public officials,
· Bonds on behalf of contractors in connection with bids, proposals or contracts.
In V/~ Whereof. the slid FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY his, DUPIUlN ~O itl By,LIwL ClUSICI them presents to I)e signed by ~t$ Vie Presmnt IncI Assistlnt Secretary 8ncI its cotrote ~
e~ehemo~mx, am,, 1st ""Yof May ~s 90
\
STATE OF NEW JERSEY } SS.
County of Somemet
1st.wof My 19 90 ,immemclmeRicl~O.O'ConnorlomeKn~wnlncIklymekna~loUe-~tSealtln/ofthe~~
CONPANY. the c:os'~lon c~ril~ in IncI which Ixlcu~d the loregoing Power of Altothey. IncI the Ilid RichlrcI O. O'Connor Demg by me cluly wlorn, ,qid 12/IXJII InCI lay Ihlt he is i SICrIIIP/434 ~
IB~D~RA4, INIURANC~ COIIPANY Incl knows the corlxxlle Sell ff~lreof; thll Ihe mill IffixecI to m forlgoIng ~ of Altofftly is Iucfi corp~ lell IncI ~ tl~ IffixM I)y lutho~ly of the ay-L.lell of ~
~. IM IM he ~ Slid Powlr of AItornly Is .A_-_m~-Jqt Sican/Of ~ Corn!DIrty I~f like IutfiOnly; IncI lhll he is IcciulintlcI with ame~ D. Dixon IncI knows him to Ue the V~ce President of slid Cairnpiny,
ss~gnmum of smcl JImes O. ~ix~sUD~cni;ea t~id p~mwr of A~t~me/8m me ge~Ume rt~nGwfitmg of~Ki J~me~.Dtx~n~nd w~s~herm~u---h--w~f~bymof llid ay'Lmtl lna in al;xmlm~pmlem:&
5TA~Y
County of Somemat } as.
CERTIFICATION
NiXan/PulOlic
NICOLETTE T. PASCUt. L!
No. 2066518
Cemmbsion Expires Octeber 2, 1994
I. the undefl;gnl(I, AIl~llnt Secfltm'y of the FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. de hereby ce~fy m,- the Ioflowmg is · true ~ceqx from the 8y-Laws of the aid Company as adom~l by its Boam of
off IdlrCfi 2, 1990 Ind thlt thll ey-Liw :s in fuH IOrC~ I~l
"ARTICLE WIll.
Sectmn2.M~u4~kmg~.c~r~r~ct~nd~t~erin~tnJment~t~h~n~f~r~M~~C~e~is~by~~e~~~
mthen~me~m~)~t~t~eC~mD~nyeit~1~rbyt~eC~m~rtheVic~Ch~m~n~rtheP~1~ident~r~aP/~j~im~emSecf~rym~n~mSea1i~y~uwthe~m~i~ec~ive
demgnmi~m.ence;xtha~any~ne~tm~m~r~tm.neys-~n.f~ctaemgnmedin~nym~kdf~n~ithe6e~mof~imct~m~r~heEac~;YeC~mmit~e~rmanymrofll1°meyexecui:lupmeded
f~rmSec~i~n3~ai~w~mayeacute~nysucri~xmd~~neiermkmg~e~i~1er~zo~igati~naspmvidedinsuchmtion~rD~werofmmmey-
orarl SV~ce P~. jmmlywith theSecrmor ln~llimlnI SIcrm, unalr rnlirmmGIlignm Thelignmum atlucttcJit~mlyl~eefigmvecl, Peimlclorlithogml~.Thelignlumalelcfi
oft~1e~fic~r~:C~tw~11~n~Vic~Crt~m~Pmmn~m~yVC~-~-~r--s----:-~`~J~q-~nyA~m~m``~V~cePmmdK~nySecmt~ry~ny#im~n~Secmt~rywtctthelelloftheC°mp~nymlfUeBffix~dbyllcmlBny
pmmrof emmey~r~mw mm~mmg~mm~a¢1}~nmg Mmmant Secmanes m.~kx;x~qxaee~n~y of mecutmg mnc~meming~,';'''''C-'=mncl unaenwcingS anclwwmmge eyigelxym mm
~hefe~nd~ny~uc~p~ntefof~1~mey~rcm1i~c~}e~rb1g~uc~ac~TM~gn~ture~T~c~mMM~e~Mb~v~id~n~:~bin(~ingUp~ntheC~mp~ny~nd~nyFJchp~ee.~acu~e~Mc~eti~edby~uch~·ni~e
s~nmure~ndfacsim8e~ea~Mbev~iid~ndmndq~p~nth~C~mp~nywithr~;ectt~umi~mh~
pfeMnc~s ofCan~d~with themof Pr~nc~Edwmm~nd:m~ndisni~du~y~icen~edt~D·c~me~iew~n~tY~n~7~nC~nde~k~ngs.etc~pe~nit1~Qm.m(~uimbylaw.
~meu~/asmamSecmm?~FEDeRAL~N~RAN~E~MPANY~d~hem~}ycen~fmat~hef~mg~in9P~werof/~1~mey~mfu~f~meande~ect~
Gwefiunclermyh~nclaMtheseloflmcIConmll~n, NJ.,this
23rd
PRI~I~D
USA
ITEM NO.
8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECUI. A
A GENDA REPORT
City Council
David F. Dixon
February 11, 1992
Resolution - Urban Streams Restoration Grant
The City has been working with a local citizens group known as Union for a River
Greenbelt Environment (URGE). The attached grant application has been filed with the
California Department of Water Resources and addresses minor stream restoration
along the Murrieta Creek.
The attached resolution is an endorsement of the= application and is similar to the
resolution which was passed by the Council last year.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ENDORSING AN APPLICATION FOR
AN URBAN STREAMS RESTORATION GRANT,
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING GRANT IF OFFERED,
AND DESIGNATING CONTRACT MANAGER AND
FISCAL AGENT.
WHEREAS, the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Local
Assistance Urban Stream Restoration Program has announced the availability of funds for
grants; and
WHEREAS, said grants are intended to help solve flooding and ewsion problems in
a way that provides environmental enhancement; and
WHIEREAS, the Union for a River Greenbelt Environment (U.R.G.E.) has proposed
to cosponsor a grant application with the City of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula has concluded the project
proposed for funding with grant funds would be environmentally-beneficial and categorically-
exempt from requirements for environmental document preparation under one or all of the
following exemptions: Class 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 or 8;
WHEREAS, the prospects of receiving such a grant are considered to be reasonably
likely.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVF-D, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula as follows:
SECTION 1. The City approves the joint application with the Union for a River
Greenbelt Environment (U.R.G.E.) for an Urban Streams Restoration Program grant.
SECTION 2. ff offered such a grant, the City Council authorizes the City Manager
to accept the grant and sign any contract for administration of the grant funds, The City
Engineer to coordinate a work plan for the project, and the Finance Officer to submit
invoices to the Department of Water Resources for activities carried out under the work plan
for the grant contract.
2\Resos\232
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPT!~]) this 1 lth day of February, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
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 11th day
of February, 1992 by the following vote of the Council:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
2\Re~os\232
Total Project Budget $
Total Grant Request $
100~000°°
50~000°°
Grant Application
1992
State of California
Department of Water Resources
Division of Local Assistance
Urban Streams Restoration Program
Grant Application
1992
State of California
Department of Water Resources
Division of Local Assistance
Urban Streams Restoration Program
Proposal Number
Project identification information
Agencies, city councils, boards of directors, districts, citizens groups or nonprofit organizations can
submit an application. See brochure, grants, The Urban Streams Restoration Program, 1992, for de-
tailed instructions for completing this application.
I. Project applicant and endorser
A. Organization or government agency submitting the applicatiom
Name of project manager
Organization or agency
Ronald W, Knopp Union for a River
Street address City
41843 Shorewood Ct. TetaecUla,
County
Riverside
Name of official representing agency or organization
Ronald W. Knopp
Greenbelt Environment
Zip
CA 92591
Area code/Telephone
( 714 ) 699-5463
Date
January 30, 1992
B. Organization or government agency cosponsoring this application:
Contact name
Organization or agency
David F. Dixon, City Manager
Streetaddress
43174 Business ~ark Drive
County
Riverside
Name of official representing agency or organ~ation
David F. Dixon
City of Temecula
City '
Temecula, CA 92Z51~0
Area code/Telephone
(714)694-1989
Date
January 30, 1992
Signature
see attached letter
C. If the applicant is an unincorpoFated citizens group and using a nonprofit organization as fiscal
agent to submit the application, indicate the following;
Contact name representing nonprofit organization
Name of organization acting as fiscal agent
Street address City Zip
Area code/Telephone
D. List other project endorsers and participants (please attach letters hun the individuals or
organizations listed here):
Please see attached letters of support
Resolution of support for the grant from the City of Temecula
will follow at a later date due to a '~wo meeting requirement
for any council resolutions.
II. What is/are the name(s) of the stream(s) or creek(s) you are planning to restore? In what
city or unincorporated area, county, and districts is your project located?
Na~ne of stream(s)
Temecula
Senate District
Murrieta Creek
Coun
Riverside
AssemblyDistri~
Congressional District
III. If your project is not in an area already developed for residential, commercial, or
industrial use, is it designated for such development in an adopted general plan?
Already in use
IV. Please provide a map locating your project site that includes the regional context and
local access to the site. Include at least one set of photographs of the project site.
Project description
Except for maps, design specifications, or existing reports
you may have, please confine your information to the space
provided on this application. The pages are perforated for
your convenience.
1. Summary statement
Describe the purpose of your project. Your project must help
contribute to the reduction of property damage from floods or
bank failure(it may do so by stabilizing the stream system and
watershed).
The objectives of this project are multifold in nature. The
existing creekbed flows through an historical area of the city
(Old Town Temecula) which has recently received economic
redevelopment funds from the county in the form of tax rebates.
The purpose of these funds are for development of the areas'
business, recreation and flood control area. Our group proposes
a multi-use property management program of the streambed and
the surrounding and adjacent historical floodplain properties
as a more desirable alternative to the County Plan to concrete:
1. Protection of the permanent structures already standing
and in danger of damage from bank collapse as well as protection
of adjacent land from erosion.
2. Flood attenuation and reduction of erosion. Severe flood
peaks and erosion have created much concern among our downstream
neighbors such as Camp Pendleton Marine Base.
3. Reduced stream sedimentation both locally and downstream.
4. Improvement of water quality, as the creekbed and adjacent
area can exercie their natural water-holding and filtering
functions. Removal of excess vegetation and replanting of banks
5. Additional aquifer recharge concomitant with #4 above.
6. Greenbelt and parkland along the creek that will provide
much needed recreation areas for the city by:
a. Enhancement and beautification of the streambed to
improve riparian habitat and wildlife environment.
b. The use of gabions and extension of the natural
terracing of the creekbed will allow improved non-automotive
transportation corridors the length of Temecula'through
creation of equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle trails.
This will significantly decrease automotive pressure on
the turn of the century roadway through this part of the
city.
c. Creation of recreational areas adjacent to the stream
for picnicking, walking, playing, etc.
d. Enhancement of the retail area adjacent to the greenbelt
by the creation of a pleasant, nurturing atmosphere which
will in turn draw more patrons to the area's businesses
thereby increasing sales tax which the city can then use
improve and maintain the area.
e. Improve property values along the creek, increasing
property tax which can also be used for improvements.
page 2 of 8
2. Please describe the stream restoration or watershed
management techniques you will use. How will these techniques
or management measures stabilize the watershed and how will
they restore, enhance, or preserve a riparian environment?
Attach drawings, design specifications, management plans,
environmental impact reports, or other documents that may help
describe the project.
1. Flood control in the area by stabilization of the crekbanks
and subsequent control of silt, coupled with controlled removal
of excess brush and vegetation that has taken hold in the silt.
2. Enhancement of the creekbed thru bioengineering involving
replanting of slopes, terracing of banks, permeable bank
supports, check dams, removal of non-native/weed/trash species
and encouragement of native plantlife wherever possible.
3. We favor the use of gabions for the steeper bank
stabilization because:
a. Encroachment of structures into the area directly
adjacent to creekbed have emperiled these structures and
immediate, creek wall support measures are needed.
b. The gabions are porous which will allow recharge of
the aquifer which is rapidly being depleted.
c. Gabions allow replanting of native vegetation.
d. The terraced effect of the gabions allow access to
the streambed and subsequent recreational and educational
value not available with concrete channelization.
e. Gabions are labor intensive, labor is the one asset
that we are in abundance of with our volunteer organizations
3. Is this project a supplement to or being planned in lieu
of a local or cooperative local-federal flood control project?
If it is, please describe the agencies and organizations
involved, the stage of the planning process, and currently
proposed plans.
This project is planned in lieu of a proposed Riverside
County Flood Control plan for concrete channelization and
subsequent destruction of riparian and wildlife habitat in the
area. The proposed county project has been recommended by a
citizens advisory group comprised primarily developer interests
who desire the concrete channelization to allow building closer
to the channel in order to increase profits. The permits ofr
the project by the county are just being initiated. EIRs are
being updated to allow the concrete work put are opposed by
Fish and Game, These documents have not been approved. If the
riparian habitat is to be retained, action must be initiated
soon, or restoration of the natural habitat will be prohibitively
expensive. In addition, the increased, uncontrolled high volume
flow downstream will permanently damage or destroy the
established wildlife habitat downstream and a valuable natural
resource will be lost.
page 3 of 8
4. Please describe the,project's use of public participation
in planning, design, and/or implimentation of the project.
What citizen organizations are sponsoring or supporting this
project?
The Union for a River Greenbelt Environment (U.R.G.E.)
is the coordinating group for this project. The group is made
up of biologists, ecologists, naturalists, land use managers
and concerned citizens from the local area. The
Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resources Conservation District is
assisting with the technical and design input. The following
orgnizations have volunteered support and/or labor:
The City Manager's Office, City of Temecula
The Temecula Chamber of Commerce
The Temecula Town Association (a major property owner on
the creek)
The Chairwoman, Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission
The President, Temecula Old Town Merchants' Association
The Temecula Public Safety Commission
Sal Munoz, Councilman, City of Temecula
Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resources Conservation District
Temecula Earth Club
Santa Rosa Plateau Conservancy
Numerous local merchants and unorganized groups
5. What educational benefits will be derived for the public,
and what technical contribution wo the problem of stream
restoration or stream corridor management might this project
provide?
By stream restoration and increased access to the streambed,
riparian, wildlife and geological as well as hydrological
training can be pursued by the local schools Local science
teachers and naturalists have expressed interest in the
possibility of nature.walks in the improved access. By
increasing awareness of the citizenry and the youth of the area,
the general interest in local natural systems and the universal
ecosystem can be promoted and enhanced.
Through the use of gabions and planting of the native
vegetation to stabilize the streambed, this project can be used
as an example of how bio-engineering can be used as an
alternative to concrete channelization.
page 4 of 8
6. What will you submit to the Department of Water Resources
that describes the methods and results of your project? The
minimum required is completing a survey questionnaire and
submitting before and after photographs of the project.
As can be seen by the attached photographs of the streambed,
there has already been an extensive photographic catalogue of
the creek condition as it is now. These, as well as construction
phase and post construction photographs will be forwarded.
There will be an outline/timeline of the project as well as
a videotape chronology of the work planned as it is being
performed. These items as well as the required questionnaire
will be forwarded upon phase completion of the work.
7. What are your plans for long-term management or maintenance
of the stream you are managing or restoring?
The long-term plan for this and other affected creek and
streambeds in the area is for an integrated-and coordinated
watershed district that will use bioengineering, judicious
planting of native species, creative hydrology, check dams,
retention basins and detention basins in order to enhance the
lifestyle of the surrounding community, preserve and enhance
native wildlife as well as recharge the dwindeling aquifer.
Economic Redevelopment Funds, Parks and Recreation Funds,
and County Flood Control funds as well as further grants will
be used for further improvements and upkeep.
page 5 of 8
8. If you do not receive your grant request, what other options
do you have to meet your project objectives? If your grant
proposal was selected for partial funding, what components of
your project would you choose for priority funding?
One of the objectives of the funding request is to show
the flood control district that there are alternatives to ugly,
sterile, unimaginative and expensive concrete channelization.
Funding by the Department of Water Resources will act as seed
money and as confirmation of the suitability of our plan.
Failure to receive funding for this project may well be the
death knell for the ecologically sound choice for this water
resource. If partial funding is granted, a possibility exists
to use financial resources such as Economic Redevelopment Funds
previously mentioned and Parks and Recreation Funds as well
as Flood Control funds. Approval of this application, however,
could act as the impetus for a deluge of support. In the event
of partial funding, the streambank stabilization in the worst
areas of erosion would have priority.
9. The legislation authorizing this program requires applicants
to provide a local contribution to the costs of the project.
This contribution can be monetary, materials, labor, volunteer
labor, staff time or land easements. Please state how you will
meet this requirement.
The City Manager's Office, City of Temecula will assist
with staff support.
The Director of Public Works, City of Temecula will assist
with technical advice and engineering.
The Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Temecula
will assist in the greenbelt/recreation planning.
The Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resources Conservation District
will assist in watershed management planning.
The Union for a River Greenbelt Environment will coordinate
volunteer groups and education programs as well as funding
interests.
The Riverside Flood Control District will assist in
technical and funding needs within the constraints of their
budget and charter.
The Temecula Old Town association will assist by investment
of land and labor to the project as well as some heavy-equipment
operator time and equipment.
The Temecula Earth Club will assist in fund raising and
labor.
The City of Temecula Public Safety Commission will assist
with staff time, technical input and coordination with government
entities.
page 6 of 8
10. Please outline your proposed budget. Quantify, when
possible, the components of your planning or design process,
the areal (lateral and linear) extent of restoration work, labor,
materials, and equipment requirements. Indicated portions to
be funded by DWR and by other sources.
FUNDING
DWR grant funding .................................. $50,000
Matching funds Temecula Redevlopment District ...... $25,000
(When approved by City Council)
Matching amount volunteer labor, equipment, etc... $25,000
Total funding for 1992 ............................ $100,000
OUTLAYS
Materials (ie. rock, wire, hand tools, etc.) ....... $50,000
Equipment operations above and beyond volunteer .... $25,000
Labor(staff volunteer time, manual labor, etc.) .... $25,000
TOTAL OUTLAYS ..................................... $100,000
Additional funding may be necessary depending on the status
of eminent domain for the flood channel. Tentative agreements
are established by the owners with Riverside County Flood Control
page 7 of 8
1989
City of Ternecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
Ronald J. Parks
Mayor
Patrlcla H. Birdsall
Mayor Pro Tern
Karel F. Llndemans
Councilmember
Peg Moore
Councilmember
J. Sal Mufioz
Councilmember
David F. DIxon
City Manager
17141 694-1989
FAX 1714J 694-1999
January 30, 1992
Mr. Earl Cummings
Program Manager, Urban Stream Management
California Department of Water Resources
1020 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Urban Stream Restoration Grant
Dear Mr. Cummings:
The City of Temecula is anxious to work with the Department of
Water Resources and has entered into a working relationship with a
local group to look at alternate methods for managing our
environment. In particular, the City is working with a group called
the Union for a Riverside Greenbelt Environment to address flood
control issues in our community. Attached you will find a grant
application which demonstrates a union between the public and
private sector and an initial step in our continuing efforts to blend
public and private needs together.
It is my hope that the Department of Water Resources will consider
this grant application and authorize funding. Please do not hesitate
to call me if you have any questions relative to this submission.
David F. Dixon
City Manager
DFD:ss
Attachment
bcc:
T. Serlet
R- Knopp
Resolution endorsing application for an Urban Streams Restoration
Grant and determining appropriate environmental impact document,
conditionally accepting grant if offered, and designating
contract manager and fiscal agent.
WHEREAS, the California Department of Water Resources,
Division of Local Assistance, Urban Stream Restoration Program
has announced the availability of funds for grants; and
WHEREAS, said grants are intended to help solve flooding
and erosion problems in a way that provides environmental
enhancement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has proposed to sosponsor
a grant application with Union for a River Greenbelt Environment;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has concluded the project
propsed for funding with the grant funds would be environmently-
beneficial and categorically-exempt from requirements for
environmental documantation preparation under one or all of
the following exemptions: Class 1,2,4,6,7, or 8.
WHEREAS, we consider the prospects of receiving such a
grant to be reasonably likely.
NOW THEREFORE, =E IT RESOLVED
We the Union for a River Greenbelt Environment approve
the joint application with the City of Temecula for an Urban
Streams Restoration Program grant.
If offered such a grant, we authorize Ronald W. Knopp to
accept the grant and sign any contract for administration of
the grant funds, Ronald W. Knopp to develop a work plan for
the project, and Kathleen Hamilton to submit invoices to the
Department of Water Resources for activities carried out under
the work plan for the grant contract.
Project Manager January 30, 1992
Sample Resolution
for Private Citizen's Group
Resolution endorsing application for an Urban Strezms Restoration Grant and determining appropriate
environmental impact document, conditionally accepting gram if offered, and designating contract man-
ager and fiscal agent.
WHEREAS, the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Local Assistance, Urban
Stream Restoration Program has announced the av_nilnbffity of funds for grants; and
WHERF, a~, said gram are intended to help solve flooding and erosion problems in a way that
provides environmental enhancement; and
WHEREAS, the has proposed to cosponsor a grant application with
; and
WHEREAS, the has concluded the project proposed for funding
with the grant funds would be environment_~lly-beneficial and categorically-exempt from requirements for
environmental document preparation under one or all of the following exemptions: Class 1,2,4,6,7, or 8
(select appropriate class[es]): or has adopted an appropriate document; and
WHEREAS, we consider the prospects of receiving such a grant to be reasonably likely.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
We the approve the Joint application with
for an Urban Streams Restoration Program grant.
If offered such a grant, we authorize
sign any contract for administration of the grant funds,
a work plan for the project, and
to accept the grant and
to develop
to submit invoices to the Department
of Water Resources for activities carried out under the work plan for the grant contract.
PRIVATE C1TIZEN'S GROUP OR ORGANIZATION
DATE:
/ ,,',
.f
/
/
/
/
.I
ITEM NO. 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY '
FINANCE OFFICER.)~
CITY MANAGER ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
February 11, 1992
Change of Zone 19
PREPARED BY:
John R. Meyer
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 92-
19; and
approving Change of Zone No.
2. CONDUCT FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 92-
title only adopting Change of Zone No. 19.
read by
APPLICATION INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
Expand Old Town Historical District Boundary.
LOCATION:
Old Town Historic District, generally located between Murrieta
(River Street) Creek and Hwy 15, between 2nd and 6th Streets.
BACKGROUND:
This item was continued from the Council's January 14, 1992 meeting to allow staff to
respond to the issues raised during the public hearing and to determine the assessed valuation
of property located within the proposed boundary expansion area. The Council also requested
additional information regarding the justification of the configuration of the proposed boundary
change.
DISCUSSION:
The following tables show the evol,ution of the various recommendations as presented to the
Commission and Council for the boundary expansion, and include a brief discussion in support
of the recommendation.
S~STAFFRPT\I 9*CZ.CC3
Table I
Recommendation to Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting
Noticed Public Hearing
North:
South:
East:
West:
to Rancho California Road.
to First Street/Santiago Road.
No change
to include the area within the Murrieta Creek Channel.
Staff proposed an expansion to the Old Town Historic District at the direction of the
City Council. The recommendation to the Planning Commission was consistent with
that direction. That recommendation was to expand the district northerly to Rancho
California Road. This allows the creation of an Old Town gateway and identity
statement at a freeway interchange. It also allows for review of any major remodels
of the existing commercial development. The expansion to the south will provide for
a better delineation or "break point" of the district boundary. The Murrieta Creek
provides a logical boundary and buffer for Old Town. By including the area within the
channel, any future City improvements (ie: park or pedestrian improvements) will be
subject to the Old Town guidelines.
The October 7th Commission meeting was a Public Hearing and notices were mailed
to all property owners within the existing historical district, within the proposed
boundary expansion, and within 300' of the proposed boundary expansion.
Table II
Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council
November 12, 1991 City Council Meeting
Council Business
North:
South:
East:
West:
to include all four corners of the intersection of Rancho California and Front
Street.
to include the lots along the west side of Front Street, south to Hwy 79.
No Change
to include the lots that front onto the west side of Pujol Street and the lots
that front on the north side of Sixth Street (west of Murrieta Creek).
After hearing public testimony, the Commission's recommended to increase the area
of the proposed expansion. One of the speakers (Mr. Bill Perry) encouraged the
Commission to include the area west along Pujol, and south past the community
center because he felt staff's recommendation did not include areas that were
historically linked to Old Town. The Commission then recommended to include all
four corners of the Rancho California/Front Street intersection to further strengthen
a future Old Town Gateway. The area along the west side of Front Street, south of
Santiago Road, was included because it was predominately vacant and served as a
southern gateway at the Hwy 79/Hwy 15 interchange.
Aside from Mr. Perry no other public testimony was received by the Commission.
S~,STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ .CC3 2
Table III
City Council Recommendation, Prior to setting Public Hearing Date
November 12, 1991 City Council Meeting
Council Business
North: to include all four corners of the intersection of Rancho California and Front St.
South: to include the area south along Front Street to HWY 79, and the area west of
HWY 15.
East: No Change
West: to include the lots that front onto the west side of Pujol Street and the lots that
front on the north side of Sixth Street (west of Murrieta Creek).
The Planning Commission recommended boundary was expanded by the City Council
at this meeting. The predominately built-out area along the east side of south Front
Street was included to prevent an "island" within the historical district and allow for
review of future redevelopment. The area along the west side of HWY 15, south of
HWY 79 was included because the City was considering purchase of the property.
A minor adjustment along Pujol and Sixth Street was made based on input received
from Mr. Larry Markham during the meeting. No one else addressed the Council on
this item.
ANALYSIS
The expansion of the Old Town Historical District Boundary is intended to provide a more
comprehensive review of development proposals that relate to Old Town Temecula. The
provisions of the Old Town Historic District regulate the physical development within the
district. It does not set forth land use policy or in any way further restrict uses currently
permitted or conditionally permitted. This is an important distinction that many of the people
protesting the boundary may have misunderstood.
In discussing the proposal with a few property owners who contacted staff, we indicated the
expanded boundary would act more as a buffer to the core area. This means that new
development should be responsive to the character of Old Town, rather than incorporate a
particular historical design and period materials as required within the core area. This
approach was consistently presented by the various consultants in the their Old Town Specific
Plan proposals. This direction would be carried out through policy and developed standards
contained within an Old Town Specific Plan.
SUMMARY:
Staff has compiled the assessed valuation of the property and improvements within the
proposed boundary expansion at just under $100 million. To date, the assessed valuation of
property represented by written protests is just under $25 million or 25 percent of the total.
This is under the 50% set forth in Ordinance 578; therefore, the Council may expand the
boundary as it so desires.
As plotted on the attached Protest Exhibit there is a cluster of protests located along Front
Street south of Santiago. In response to the public testimony received at its January 14,
1992 meeting, staff recommends the Council consider reducing the proposed boundary
expansion as follows:
S~STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC3 ~3
North:
South:
East:
West:
to include all four corners of the intersection of Rancho California and Front
Street.
to First Street/Santiago Road and to include the property that fronts on the
southside of First Street, between Front and Pujol.
No Change
to include the lots that front onto the west side of Pujol Street and the lots
that front on the north side of Sixth Street (west of Murrieta Creek).
Staff further recommends that the Council consider including the property along the southside
of First Street in response to a potential future bridge crossing over the creek. As
recommended elsewhere, staff believes both sides of a street need to be included to create
an effective gateway statement·
In addition to reducing the boundary per public comment, staff's recommendation also adjusts
the westerly boundary to coincide with the Redevelopment Project Area Boundary (see
attached exhibit).
CONCLUSION:
Consistent with Ordinance 578, a ,notice of Public Hearing has been mailed to every property
owner within the existing district and proposed expansion area. The notice contained the
information required by Ordinance 578, including the provision for written protest against the
expansion of the boundary. The Council has not received written protest from owners of real
property within the proposed boundary expansion, the assessed value of which, as shown by
the last equalized assessment roll, which exceeds more than one-half of total assessed value
of real property within the proposed boundary expansion. Therefore the Council may take
action on this item.
FINDINGS:
In order for the Council to approve the Old Town Historical District Boundary Expansion one
or more of the following findings must be made:
The area within the expanded Old Town Temecula Historical District is
culturally and socially linked to the history of the original town of Temecula;
and,
e
The area within the expanded Old Town Temecula Historical District is
identified with historic personages and with important events in the history
of the original town of Temecula; and,
The area within the expanded Old Town Temecula Historical District contains
buildings of the architectural period which is inherently valuable for the
historical study of Temecula.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 92-_- page 5
2. Ordinance No. 92-_- page 9
3. Boundary Exhibits and
Protest Exhibit - page 12
4. November 12, 1991, City Council Report - page 13
5. November 12, 1991, City Council Minutes - page 14
S~,STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC3 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92---
S~STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC3 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 19 TO EXPAND THE OLD TOWN
HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY.
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula filed Change of Zone No. 19 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on October 7,
1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Change of Zone;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Change of
Zone on February 11,1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Change of Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a
general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if
all of the following requirements are met:
A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan.
B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
S~STAFFRPT~I 9*CZ.CC3 6
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of
state law and local ordinances.
e
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan,
(hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General
Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its
General Plan.
3. The City Council in approving the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings,
to wit:
The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. The
proposed project is a Statutory Exemption per Section 15262 of CEQA.
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with
the surrounding proposed development, zoning, and SWAP.
The area within the expanded Old Town Temecula Historical District is
culturally and socially linked to the history of the original town of Temecula;
and,
The area within the expanded Old Town Temecula Historical District is
identified with historic personages and with important events in the history
of the original town of Temecula; and,
The area within the expanded Old Town Temecula Historical District contains
buildings of the architectural period which is inherently valuable for the
historical study of Temecula.
4. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project is a Statutory
Exemption per Section 15262 of CEQA.
S~STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC3 7
SECTION 3. Expansion of Boundary
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Change of Zone No. 19 to expand
the Old Town Temecula Historical District Boundary as shown in Exhibit I and incorporated
herein by reference.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of February 1992
Patricia H. Birdsall
MAYOR
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 14th day of
January, 1992 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S\STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC3 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 92-,_
S~STAFFRPT%19-CZ.CC3 9
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, EXPANDING THE OLD TOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT
BOUNDARY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council
of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the
State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use
district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official
Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended
hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of
Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described
in Change of Zone No. 19 and in the above title, and as shown on attached Exhibit I and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of
the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted
in at least three public places in the City.
SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
__ day of ,1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
S\STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC3 1 O
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY COUNCIL
MAP NO:
ADOPTED:
CHANGE OF ZONE NO: 19
EFFECTIVE:
ORDINANCE NO: 92-
S~STAFF~m~S-CZ.CC3 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
BOUNDARY EXHIBITS
S~STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC3 12
Recommended
Revised Old Town Historical District
February 11, 1992
V~A R
Existing Old Town Boundary
Proposed Boundary Expansion
/
Subarea Map
In an effort to provide more clarit
related to existing !and uses on ea~
arcel, the ]ar· Project area has
r~en subdivide~ into four se Barate
separaLe
subareas. This map shows each of the
subareas and their relationships to
one another for ease in evaluating the
following 'Existing Land Use Maps'.
4
! /
L/ :~
,
./
·
%
eeeeeee
"'11' 'i I eb
It I It It::
II I IIII It I
II I II
st II II
II I I II I
It I I II II
I st I I
at II II
'I.
'.***********;
~,
OLD TOWN TEMECULA HISTORIC DISTRICT
EXISTING ~
PROPOSED I I
Recommendation to Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting
Noticed Public Hearing
VITA
LEGEND
~ Exis6~g Old Town Boundary
Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council
November 12, 1991 City Council Meeting
Council Business
FORNIA
\/_Old Town Historical District Boundary
Existing Old Town Boundary
,,,---
Proposed Boundary Expansion
City Council Recommendation, Prior to setting Public Hearing Date
November 12, 1991 City Council Meeting
Council Business
/i
//
,/
Protest Exhibit
,|FORNIA
~;.~_,,,,,,~,,.
property owners Who Have
Submitted Written Letters
of Protest Through 2/4/92
qTA
II
//
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
S\STAFFRP"I~I 9-CZ.CC3 13
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
November 12, 1991
Change of Zone 19
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY: John R. Meyer
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. DIRECT staff to establish boundary proposal for Old Town
Temecula Historical District expansion, notice all property
owners within proposed boundary, and schedule for public
hearing by the Council.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: City of Temecule
PROPOSAL: Expand Old Town Historical District Boundary.
LOCATION: Old Town Historic District, generally located between Murrieta
(River Street) Creek and Hwy 15, between 2nd and 6th Streets.
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USES:
C-1
C-P
M-S
R-1
(General Commercial)
(Restricted Commercial)
(Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
(One Family Dwellings)
No Change Proposed
Commercial
Residential
Vacant
$~,$TAFFRPT%l IoCZ.CC
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing for proposed Change of Zone No. 19
on October 7, 1991. Staff had recommended the following boundary expansion:
North: to Rancho California Road.
South: to First Street/Santiago Road.
East: No change
West: to include the area within the Murrieta Creek Channel.
In their deliberation of the project's merits, and in consideration of public testimony addressing
the proposed change of zone, the Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval of Change
of Zone 19. The Commission did increase the expansion area as follows:
North: to include all four corners of the intersection of Rancho California and Front St.
South: to include the lots along the west side of Front Street, south of First St.
East: No Change
West: to include the lots that front onto the west side of Pujol Street and the lots that
front on the north side of Sixth Street (west of Murrieta Creek).
The existing and proposed boundaries are shown in Exhibit I. The Commission believed the
expanded boundary was necessary to include other historical structures and other areas that
could influence the character of old town.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
Subsequent to closing the public Hearing for Change of Zone No. 19, the Planning
Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval as amended to expand the Old Town
Temecula Historical District Boundary. The Staff forwards the Commission's approval
recommendation to the City Council for their consideration.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
DIRr-CT staff to establish boundary proposal for Old Town
Temecula Historical District expansion, notice all property
owners within proposed boundary, and schedule for public
hearing by the Council.
Attachments:
1. Boundary Exhibit
2. October 7, 1991, Planning Commission Report
3. October 7, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes
S%STAFFRPT%q t-CZ.CC
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
S\STAFFRPT%l 9*CZ.CC3 14
Citv Council Minutes November 1 :~. 1991
The motion was carried, by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz,
Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 11:31 PM to.change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 11:32 PM.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to extend
the meeting to 11:45 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
17. Aooointment of Old Town HistOric Review Board
June Greek, City Clerk, introduced the staff report.
Councilmember Mufioz questioned the mason for recommending Christina Grina as an
alternate.
Councilmember Lindemans responded that the committee felt that Mrs. Grina would
serve better working on the Master Plan of Old Town where her expertise would be
fully utilized.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
approve committee recommendation and directed the staff to place changes to the
policy guidelines on a future agenda.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz,
Parks
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
18. Channe of 7one No. 1 ~ - Old Town Historical District Boundary
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report.
Ninutes\11\12\91 -15- 11/19/91
City Co,,ncil Minutes November 1 .~. 1991
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to
direct staff to establish · boundary proposal for the Old Town Temecula Historical
District expansion with the addition of the lots on both sides of Front Street south of
First Street; the 96 acre Margarita Canyon parcel southwest of the I-15 interchange
and Front Street; and all of the lots located on both sides of Sixth Street west of the
creek; notice all property owners within proposed boundary and schedule for public
hearing by the Council.
The motion Was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz,
Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAt4;R RFPORTS
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
After a brief discussion, it was decided by full concurrence that Council would ineet in
December on the 10th and 17th instead of the regularly scheduled meeting of December' 24,
1991.
.ADJOURNMENT
It was'moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adjourn at
11:52 PM to the meeting on December 19, 1991, at 5:30 at City Hall, Main Conference
Room. The motion was unananimously carried.
ATTEST:
JuneaU. ~Fe~k, City Clark
R~l~~d.~yor
Ninutes\11\1Z\91 -16- 11/19/91
ITEM NO. 10
APPROVAL~,.~,
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
February 11, 1992
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
PREPARED BY:
Debbie Ubnoske
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council continue Change of Zone
No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to March
10, 1992.
ANALYSIS
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 were previously before
the City Council on October, 8, 1991, November 12, 1991, December 10, 1991 and January
14, 1992. These items were continued at the applicants' request. The applicant is once
again requesting a continuance to March 10, 1992.
vgw
S\STAFFRP'r'~63 ! ez.e,e5
ITEM NO.
11
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DENYING APPEAL NO. 18, ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO. 192, TO
INSTALL A 45 FOOT HIGH FREEWAY SIGN AT AN APPROVED
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS
OF FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, 29115 FRONT STREET.
WHEREAS, Lou Kashmere, filed Appeal No. 18 in accordance with the Riverside
County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on
February 11, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a
general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if
all of the following requirements are met:
A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan.
B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
S~STAFFRP'r%l 8APP.CC 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S~rAFFRPT~eN,P.CC 3
For the minimal freeway exposure observed by Staff the proposed sign would need to be 45'
high, the maximum allowed by Ordinance 348.
An additional concern that Staff has with the freeway sign is the proposed location.
Approximately 25 feet south of the proposed sign there is an existing full-size double billboard
sign.
Ordinance No. 348 requires a 500 foot separation between billboards. Realizing that the
proposed freeway sign is not technically a billboard, the opinion of Staff is that the intent of
the Ordinance is to keep to a minimum the visual impact of large signs. In addition, staff has
determined that the proposed freeway sign could pose a conflict with the City's Future
General Plan, because the Future General Plan may not allow 45 foot high signs that are not
directly adjacent to the freeway.
The Commission expressed a concern relative to the sign height, and concurred with staff's
findings. The Planning Commission also expressed that the applicant did not need a full 45
feet of height. The sign was only minimally visible from the freeway at 45 feet so orientation
to it was not necessary.
FINDINGS
Although the project as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and
development ordinances, there is a reasonable probability that Administrative Plot Plan No.
192 will not be consistent with the City's Future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time end in accordance with State law due to the fact that the future
General Plan may not allow 45 foot high signs that are not directly adjacent to a freeway.
Further, the proposal is not ch~iracteristic of similar development approved by the City to
date.
Although the City Ordinance No. 348 allows signs up to 45 feet in height, the Planning
Commission found that a sign of such height was not warranted in this case because of
the minimal visibility it will received from the freeway.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
vgw
Attachments:
1. Resolution, page 3
2. Planning Commission Minutes, November 18, 1991 and October 21, 1991 page 7
3. Planning Commission Reports, November 18, 1991 and October 21, 1991 page 8
4. Exhibits - Page 9
S%STAFFRPT~I 8APP.CC 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPRQVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~
CITY OF TEMECULA
A(IENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
February 11, 1992
Appeal No. 18, Administrative Plot Plan No. 192
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- upholding the Planning Commission's
denial of a 45 foot freeway oriented sign, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report.
BACKGROUND:
On August 14, 1992 Administrative Plot Plan No. 192 was submitted to the City Planning
Department. The applicant's request included a 45 foot high freeway oriented sign and
building wall signs. The applicant was informed that freeway signs were reviewed by the
Planning Commission. Staff conducted a freeway visibility test of the proposed sign. The
results of that test and subsequent staff recommendation for denial were forwarded to the
Planning Commission on October 21, 1991. The Planning Commission directed staff to again
review the visibility of the sign with =the applicant. Another review was completed with a full
size sign mockup. Those results were forwarded to the Commission on November 18, 1991.
The staff recommendation remained unchanged.
At the meeting of November 18, 1991 the Planning Commission approved the application
subject to a change in the freeway sign. The Commission required the height of the sign to
be such that it is only visible beneath the I-15 bridge if one were traveling west bound on
Lower Highway 79. A 45 foot high sign (as proposed) would be partially visible above the
bridge. The applicant is appealing the limitation set by the Commission and seeking approval
of the 45 foot high sign.
DISCUSSION:
Ordinance No. 348 allows a maximum freeway sign height of 45 feet. In order to establish
what height is necessary for propar freeway visibility, staff requires a flag test on site. The
flag test is a procedure for determining visibility while actually on the freeway. Site visibility
is determined from the nearest corresponding freeway access point, three tenths of a mile
from where the off-ramp begins the transition to the surface street. For this proposal, the flag
was viewed from the I-15 Freeway and Highway 79 South.
S%STAFFRPT~I eAPP.CC
(3)
The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordinances.
e
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan,
(hereinafter "SWAP') was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General
Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its
General Plan.
3. The City Council in denying the Appeal, makes the following additional findings, to wit:
Ae
Although the project as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and
development ordinances, there is a reasonable probability that Administrative Plot Plan
No. 192 will not be consistent with the City's Future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that
the future General Plan may not allow 45 foot high signs that are not directly adjacent
to a freeway. Further, the proposal is not characteristic of similar development
approved by the City to date.
Be
Although the City Ordinance No. 348 allows signs up to 45 feet in height, the
Planning Commission found that a sign of such height was not warranted in this case
because of ~he minimal visibility it will received from the freeway.
SECTION II. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Appeal No. 18, Administrative Plot Plan
No. 192, to install a 45 foot high freeway sign at an approved automotive service facility
located at the southerly terminus of Front Street and Highway 79 South, 29115 Front Street.
SECTION III.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of February, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
S~STAFFRPT~18APP.CC 5
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 1 lth day of February, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S%STAFFRPT~I BARe .CC 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
S\STAFFRF'~I BAPP,CC 7
""J II I I ~lf
NON PUBtIC !!wakRING lTBIjI48
3. PLOT PL/~N ADMINISTI~TIV~
Proposal for center signage/freeway sign on the west side
of Front Street, north of lower Highway 79.
CHARLES RAY summarized the staff report.
LOUIS RASHHERB, applicant, 19555 Camino De Paz, Murrieta,
stated that he needed the 45' height for the sign in
order to clear the bridge. Mr. Kashmere presented the
Commission with pictures of the proposed sign location.
Mr. Kashmere added that staff had some question about the
canopy spandrel and offered to removed the spandrel off
of the east and west side of the building.
COMMISSIONERFORD stated that although he did not want to
deny the project, he did not like the sign at the height
being proposed by the applicant and suggested that the
applicant look at the sign at a lower level, stating that
he thought the sign would be more effective below the
bridge. Commissioner Ford asked if the applicant had
contacted Ca1 Trans for freeway signage indicating "Gas,
Food, etc." at next off ramp.
COMMIBBIONERCHINIAEFF concurred with Mr. Ford's comments
stating that he would be in favor of the sign at it's
original proposed size and location, but at a lower
elevation. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that he agreed
with the applicant's recommendation to remove the canopy
spandrel from the west side of the project.
GARY THORNHILL asked if the Commission wanted the sign to ~,,,
remain a pole sign or a monument sign.
COMMZBBZONBRCHINIAEFF suggested that staff work that out
with the applicant. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that
the applicant needed to push to get the freeway signage
with logos from Cal Trans.
DOUG STEWlIT offered that staff would be willing to work
with the applicant and direct him to the appropriate
resources at Cal Trans to look at the freeway signs.
CHAIRMAN CHXNIAEFF moved to approve the spandrel,
removing the colored band 'on the west side of the
building and approve the sign as was originally proposed
with the exception of lowering it to a height visible
under the freeway bridge west bound on Highway 79 on a
pedestal mount to match the building, based on the
findings contained in the staff report and make an
additional finding that it beconsistent with the future
general plan making signs set at heights that are
workable and in reasonable accordance with state law and
the sign that is being proposed not be a detriment or
interfere with the future general plan of the City,
seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
aBSENT: X COMMISSIONERS: Blair
aBSTAIN:I COMMZBSIONERS: Fahey
Commissioner. Fahey arrived at 6:25 P.M. and was no longer
considered absent.
II
II
PCMINll/18/el
-3-
I)T.IklQ!FTNG COPNTBBTON JxTIfrUTlem OC'Z'Olalteu :~1, 1991
.I
]JOLT Z;t:TRT. TC lflelL.~TNG, TT~B
3 · PLOT Z)LAN ADMXNXSTRATIVB 192
Proposal for Signage, freeway sign. Located on the west
aide of Front Street, North of Lower Highway 79.
MARX RXOADBS,presented the Staff report.
~1~21~1 -2 - 10r23;91
~.~l~q~iT~e CO]41ZTBBTONM'l'iWTFT1eB OCTO~lrR ~1,1991
COMMXBBIOIE~ CHXNXAEFF asked if staff had reviewed the
sign at any lower elevations-
MAI]C~BOADll stated that staff had reviewed the sign at
a number of lower elevations, and it was not visible.
LOUFaSBM~XZ, applicant, 19555 Camino Del Paz, Murrieta,
reviewed a letter he received from the oil company which
he plans to contract with, which indicated the company's
concern for doing business at Mr. Kashmere's facility if
he were not allowed the signage at 45'. Mr. Kashmere
stated that without the approval for the proposed
signage, he would have to go back and review the project
and decide if it would be viable without the signage.
Additionally, Mr. Kashmere offered to move the proposed
sign on the other side of the driveway to get it away
from the billboard.
COMMISHION~X FO~D stated that future growth of the
freeway landscaping would block the visibility of the
sign for southbound traffic and suggested that a freeway
sign advertising of gas would be sufficient.
CNAXRMAN!OAGLAXDasked how the proposed sign appears in
relation to other signage for gas stations.
MARK PaIOADES stated that the City has not approved any
signs over 45' since incorporation.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that staff indicated in the
staff report that the proposed sign may be in conflict
with the future general plan and therefore she would not
be in favor of approving.
COMMISBIONERC~XNIAEFF stated that he felt Nr. Kashmere
could effectively advertise without 100% visibility from
all directions and moved to continue Administrative Plot
Plan for the next two meetings to allow the applicant the
opportunity to work with staff on a lower height for the
proposed sign, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
~N!~a!~91 -3 - 1121/91
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
S%STAFFRPT%l IAPP.CC 8 ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
DATE:
November 18, 1991
SUBJECT: Administrative Plot Plan No. 192
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DIRr-CT Staff to DENY Administrative Plot Plan 192
The Planning Staff has again met with the applicant relative to the proposed freeway sign height.
Visibility of the subject sign was again reviewed by means of a flag type test, using a full size mockup
of the sign. The proposed sign was viewed from approximately 80 feet north of an existing billboard per
the Planning Commissions comments. Views from various positions were recorded as follows:
I-15 Three tenths of one mile from
Southbound -
appropriate ramp approach.
Northbound -
35 feet high - not visible
40 feet high - half visible
45 feet high - visible
40 feet high - not visible
45 feet high - not visible
Lower Hiohwav 79 Three tenths of
Westbound -
From Street
one mile east of the site.
40 feet high three quarters - visible
45 feet high - visible
Clear visibility three quarter of a mile away
Although the new proposed location decreases the visual impact of the proximity of the billboard with
the proposed sign, the decrease is not significant.
At this point the applicant is not willing to reduce the proposed sign height. The applicant cites the need
for freeway signage for business viability.
~ S%STAFFIqPTt'192'PPA 1
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 21, 1991
Case No.: Administrative Plot Ran No. 192
Prepared By: Mark Rheades
DIRECT Staff to DENY Administrative Plot Plan 192;
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Lou Kashmere
Lou Kashmere
Application for signage at an approved gasoline and
carwash facility with a freeway oriented sign
29115 Front Street
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-SC {Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
R-R (Rural-Residential)
None :; equostod
Vacant
North: Concrete Facility
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Murrieta Creek
Proposed Freeway Sign Height: 45 feet
Proposed Sign Square Footage: 148.5 square feet
S~ITAFFtqPT%112.PPA
ANALYSIS
Administrative Plot Plan No. 192 was submitted to the City on August 14, 1991. The current
application is a proposal for project identification for Conditional Use Permit No. 5 which was
previously approved by the Planning Commission. The approved conditional use permit
contains gasoline, carwash, mini market and automobile servicing facilities.
Building Signs
The proposed building signs consist of red illuminated channel letters applied to the building
surface. The proposed signage conforms with the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The
applicant had originally proposed individual signs over each of the service bays at Staff's
request. It is Staff's opinion that the individual signs over each of the service bays did not
meet the intent of the Ordinance. The applicant has agreed to remove these signs from the
application.
Canopy Spandreis
The applicant proposes internally illdrninated spsndrels which would band the perimeter of the
canopy over the gasoline pumps. The proposed spandrels would be multi-colored and made
of a flexible banding. Staff has determined that the illuminated spandrels do not meet the
requirements of Ordinance No, 348. The area in question constitutes signage and exceeds
the allowable square footage for wall signs,
Free Standing Signs
Originally the applicant proposed two signs, a 10'6" high monument sign and a 45' high
freeway identification sign, Staff informed the applicant that only one free-standing sign
would be permitted. The applicant was informed that if a freeway sign was chosen, a
Planning Commission hearing would be required.
Ordinance No. 348 allows a maximum freeway sign height of 45'. In order to establish what
height is necessary for proper freeway visibility, staff requires a flag test on site. The flag test
is a procedure for determining visibility while actually on the freeway. Site visibility is
determined from the nearest corresponding freeway access point, three tenths of a mile from
where the offramp begins the transition to the surface street. For this proposal, the flag was
viewed from the I-15 Freeway and Highway 79 South. The following results were observed
by Staff:
I-15 Freeway
Northbound - Sign glimpsed at 45'
Southbound - Sign not visible
,,,,. S%,ST AFt:Nq'% 112,PPA 2
Hiahwav 79 South
Westbound - Sign visible at 45'
For the minimal freeway exposure observed by Staff the proposed sign would need to be 45'
high, the maximum allowed by Ordinance 348,
An additional concern that Staff has with the freeway sign is the proposed location.
Approximately 25' south of the proposed sign there is an existing full-size double billboard
sign. Staff has determined that the proposed freeway sign could pose a conflict with the
City's Future General Plan, because the Future General Plan may not allow 45 foot high signs
that are not directly adjacent to the freeway, Ordinance No, 348 also requires a 500 foot
separation between billboards. Realizing that the proposed freeway sign is not technically a
billboard, the opinion of Staff is that the intent of the Ordinance is to keep to a minimum the
visual impact of large signs.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Although the proposed wall signsmeet the requirements of Ordinance No. 348, the proposed
freeway sign could pose a conflict with the City's Future Adopted General Plan.
RNDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Administrative Plot Plan No. 192 will not be
consistent with the City's Future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State law, However, the project as proposed, conforms
with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal
is not characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date,
There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's
Future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The
project is of significant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated
in the City's Future General Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
DIP~=CT Staff to DENY Administrative Plot Plan 192
vgw
Attachments:
Exhibits
S%STAI:FIFT%1 $2.PPA
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S\STAFFII:r~I eAPP.CC 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
.~.te,Jf. CT
VI ·- t k_t t'T'Y
CASE NO.'i;'~ IC~-.
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE iC~-ZI-cll "',
CITY OF TEMECULA
180
COMI
r
CASE NO.
EXHIBIT NO. ~ ~
CiTY OF TEMECULA
\
%\
eee
[
· \ /
./'
r ?.~.A. ic~Z '
CASE NO.
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE
CiTY OF TEMECULA
r ~
CASE NO.?.'~ F..I.~,
EXHIBIT NO.
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
,. i
~e am · o
t,,.
..dlk
.i
CASE NO. 't:~,,. IR.'~.
EXHIBIT NO.
kP.C. DATE
'<' ,
I'
;
t
.../
.
/
/
ITEM NO.
12
APPROVAL //77" ""~"'
CITY MANAGER '~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Dave Dixon, City Manager
Rick Sayre
Chief of Police
February 11, 1992
Fire Hydrant Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Council approve the attached amendment to the Temecula
Municipal Code related to parking near fire hydrants.
This a,mendment will authorize the Fire Chief to approve
reduced distance restrictions related to parking near fire
hydrants. The intent is to provide relief to homewoners
where limited street parking is available and the problem is
compounded by a fire hydrant. Currently parking is limited
to fifteen feet in either direction from a fire hydrant. This
amendment will limit the distance to five feet in either
direction. There is no intent for this to alter any
requirements for new or future development.
Approved by the Public Safety Commission at their
January 23, 1992 meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENT:
Draft of amendment.
VENTUIIA COUNTY OFFICE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CAMARILL, O, CALIFORNIA 93(~10
(805) 987-3468
T|rLEC;OPIER: (805) 482-9634
LAW OFFICES
BXrR.K~, Wxx, LZ~..~xS &
CQSTA MSSA, CALIFORNIA 92626
December 24, 1991
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2SOO
LOS ANGELiS, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) Z36-O800
TELECOPICR: {213) 236-2700
Rick Sayre
Chief of Police
CITY OF TEMECULA
43172 Business Park Road
Temecula, California 92390
Re: Amended Traffic Vehicle Ordinance
Dear Rick:
Attached herewith is a proposed second draft of the
Ordinance amending the existing Vehicle Traffic Ordinange with
respect to parking in front of fire hydrants.
As you requested, the proposed Amendment reduces the 15 foot
prohibition of parking near fire hydrants to 5 feet in either
direction (10 feet overall) which is specifically authorized by
the Vehicle Code at Section 22514.
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
JEC\TEN\119385. LTR
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 12.08
AT SECTION 12.08.~23 REGARDING PARKING IN
FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 12.08.223 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby mended
by adding subsection (j) to read as follows:
"(j) within five (5) feet in either direction of a fire hydrant (ten (10) feet overall)
authorized by Vehicle Code Section 225 14, when such place is approved by the Fire Chief, and
indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface."
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this
Ordinance to be posted and published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTE!~ this xx day of February, 1992.
ATTEST
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3lords/35
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY O1~ RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY O1~ TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92- was duly inmxluced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1 lth day of February, 1992 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 February, 1992 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/otds/35
ITEM NO. 13
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
February 11, 1992
Appeal No. 21, Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
APPROVE Resolution No. 92- upholding the Planning
Commission decision based on the analysis and findings
contained in the staff report, and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION
On August 20, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Plot Plan No. 86 requesting
construction of a 60 foot tower with a 10 foot diameter microwave dish mounted on its upper
portion. The visual impact of the tower was mitigated through landscaping around the tower
and accessory building, as well as by enclosing all equipment and structures with an
ornamental wrought iron fence.
Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. I is located at 30975 La Serena Way (east side of La Serena
Way, approximately 500 feet north of South General Kearny Road). Plot Plan No. 86, Revised
No. I is an application requesting construction of a 225 square foot addition to an existing
structure, a 120 square foot generator pad and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site. The 225
square foot addition will consist of a storage room and an equipment room and will be a
continuation of the architectural style of the existing structure. The proposed generator will
be enclosed by retaining walls to the north and east and a 5 foot high noise abatement wall
to the west. A 1,000 gallon propane tank will be on the southeast corner of the site.
The applicant has submitted Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. I in order to upgrade cable
facilities, to add additional stations, and to improve reception capabilities. The generator is
for emergency back-up communications networks (police, fire) and to broadcast information
to the general public. The propane tank (if full) would keep the generator running for
approximately 30 days. The landscaping, which is already in place, will serve as adequate
screening for the proposed additions to the site and no additional landscaping is necessary.
At the Planning Commission hearing on January 6, 1992, two individuals spoke in opposition
to the project. (Reference Attachment No. 2, the minutes from Planning Commission meeting
of January 6, 1992). Concerns were raised regarding the amount of room on the site which
S\STAFFP, PT~86PP-1 .CC I
City Council/City Manager
Appeal No. 21, Plot Plan No. 86, Rev. 1
Page 2
could accommodate the expansion to the existing facilities. A second individual expressed
that he was under the impression that a more "favorable" site was being sought for the
existing use. Objections were raised as to the color that the satellite dish was painted. The
Planning Commission was concerned with noise impacts from the generator and directed Staff
to create stronger language in the Conditions of Approval restricting the duration and time for
use of the generator. The Planning Commission was also concerned with visual impacts from
the proposed expansion and directed Staff to condition the project for adequate landscape
screening for the site. Based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, the
Planning Commission approved the project by a 4-0 vote.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission approval, Staff received a phone call from a resident
living adjacent to the site who raised a few concerns. One concern centered upon the height
of the permanent antenna and that there were more items added to that antenna which made
its height greater than 60 feet. Staff went to the site and upon inspection, found that an
additional antenna's in height had been added to the permanent antenna· A second concern
was that the public notice period was not a full 10 days. In addition, it was stated that not
enough people were noticed of the. hearing. Staff indicated that notice was placed on the
site, in the newspaper and notification of the hearing was mailed to residents within 600 feet
of the site. Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. I was subsequently appealed by Councilman
Mufloz during the 10 appeal day period after the Planning Commission (Appeal No. 21)
decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution No. 92-_- page 3
Minutes of January 6, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting - page 9
Staff Report for January 6, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting - page 10
S~STAFFRPT%86PP-1 ,CC 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S~STAFFRPT~e6PP-1 .CC 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE PLOT PLAN NO. 86, REVISED NO. 1
TO CONSTRUCT A 225 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
STRUCTURE, A 120 SQUARE FOOT GENERATOR PAD (WITH GENERATOR)
AND A 1,000 GALLON PROPANE TANK SITE (WITH PROPANE TANK) ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING .68 ACRES LOCATED AT 30975 LA SERENA WAY
(EAST SIDE OF LA SERENA WAY, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF
SOUTH KEARNY ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-
050-015.
WHEREAS, Inland Valley Cable Vision filed Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on January 6,
1992 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or
opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, Appeal No. 21 was filed in the time and manner prescribed by state
and local law pertaining to the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan No. 86, Revised
No. 1;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said
Appeal No. 21 on February 11, 1992 at which time interested persons had opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the
Appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
S%STAF~-I .CC 4
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan·
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time·
(2)
There 'is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed
use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3)
The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinances·
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set
forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No.
I proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed
use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
S%STAFFRPT%eePP- 1. C C 5
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of State law and City ordinances.
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.
The City Council, in upholding the Planning Commissions decision, made the following
findings:
There is a reasonable! probability that Plot Plan No. 86 Revised No. 1 will be
consistent with the City's future General Plan. which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals
and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections
65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
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. The proposed use will be placed on or adjacent to an existing structure.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development
regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's
existing site.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way (South General
Kearny Road), which is open to, and us.able by, vehicular traffic.
The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use
of the property within the proposed project.
S\$TAFFRPI~88t~.1 ,CC 6
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference. Supporting documentation is attached.
e
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed Revised Plot Plan is a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301
(e) (1) of the CEQA guidelines which pertains to minor additions to existing structures.
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission decision for
the operation and construction of a 120 square foot generator pad (with generator) and a
1,000 gallon propane tank site (with propane tank) on a parcel containing .68 Acres located
at 30975 La Serena Way (east side of La Serena Way, approximately 500 feet north of south
Kearny Road) and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 946-050-015 located at the subject to the
following conditions:
1. Attachment 3, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of February, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
S~STAFFRPT%86PP-1 .CC 7
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecule at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 11 th day of February 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S~STAFF~-I .CC 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
S\STAFFRPT%BOPP-1 .CC 9
YLO~ ~Xa3~ 86; ~.EVXB~D
Proposal to construct a 225 square foot addition to an
existing Cablevision structure, add a 120 square foot
generator pad and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site.
Located at 2526 LaSerena Way, Temecula.
NATTHZWFAGaNsummarized the staff report.
FC~ZNZ/6/92
-5-
January 7, 1992
/-
~ ~T.MqNTNG CONMXBBZONKEETXNG
UANUARY E, 1992
Px.~NING COMMI22ION NEETING
JANUARY 6, 1992
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that although the staff report
reflects that the generator will be operated under
emergency situations only, there is no condition stating
such.
GARY THORNHXLL stated that staff could add a condition
that says the generator will be operated under emergency
situations only.
JERRY SANDERS, 2770 W. Devonshire, Hemet, director of
Engineering for Inland Valley Cablevision, concurred with
the staff report. Mr. Sanders stated that Inland Valley
has run out of room at the site and therefore this
request. Mr. Sanders provided the Commission with a
history of the site.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked the applicant if the propane
tank was visible fromthe street and if it could be moved
closer to the satellite antenna.
MR. SANDERS stated that the tank would be slightly
visibley however, he offered to screen the tank with
landscaping.
GARY THORNHILL advised that the
proposed screening of the tank.
landscaping plans
CBAIRMaNHOA~LXNDsuggested that the applicant look into
a Hospital Critical Muffler for the times when the
generator is under use.
CHAIRMAN HOA~LAND asked if the applicant concurred with
a condition with states that the generator will be
operated for emergency purposes only with periodic
testing.
MR. SANDERS indicated that they would agree to that
condition.
CARL BENSCOTER, 41466 Big Sage Court, Temecula, expressed
a concern to the applicant's comments that they were
running out of room at this site.
KEN HEID, 41486 Big Sage COurt, Temecula, stated that
during previous discussions before the Planning
Commission, the applicant indicated that they were
pursuing a more commercial environment for their
equipment and questioned if they were still pursuing a
new location. Mr. Held also expressed his objection to
the color that the satellite dishes were painted.
._ PCMIN1/6/92 -6- January 7, 1992
F~IQITNG CO)n(TBeXONNEE~XNg
~]~NU~Y 6, 2992
CO)DIZBBZO!fBRCHINII~FF moved to close the public hearing
at 7:20 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving
Plot Plan No. 86, Revised Mo. 1 based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report, and amending the
Conditions of Approval as presented, to include a
Condition stating that the generator will only be used
for emergency and testing purposes and that the propane
tank will adequately screened, seconded by COIOXlSSIONER
FORD.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT: I
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey
COMMIHHIOFER FAHEY arrived at 7:20 P,M,
considered absent.
and was no longer
PCHIN1/6/92
-7-
January 7, 1992
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT FOR JANUARY 6, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
S\STAFFRP1'~BePP-1 .CC 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 6, 1992
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-m approving Plot Plan 86, Revised
No. I based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Inland Valley Cablevision
REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Davis
PROPOSAL: To construct a 225 square foot addition to an existing Inland
Valley 'Cablevision structure along with a 120 square foot
generator pad (with generator) and a 1,000 gallon propane tank
site (with propane tank).
LOCATION: 30975 La Serena Way (east side of La Serena Way,
approximately 500 feet north of South General Kearny Road).
S-P (Specific Plan 199)
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: R-R
South: S-P
East: S-P
West: R- 1
Not Requested
(Rural Residential)
(Specific Plan No. 199)
(Specific Plan No.
Residential)
(One-Family Dwellings)
199)/R-R (Rural
Communications tower, utility building and six satellite earth-
station dishes.
North: Park
South: Park
East: Metropolitan Water District Easement
West: Park
S\STAFFRFT~6-REV.PP
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Area:
Building Area:
Generator Pad:
Propane Tank:
Landscaping:
.68 acres
414 square feet
120 square feet
1,000 gallons
100 15 gallon trees
182 5 gallon shrubs
BACKGROUND
On August 20, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Plot Plan No. 86 requesting
construction of a 60 foot tower with a 10 foot microwave dish mounted on its upper portion.
The visual impact of the tower was mitigated through landscaping around the tower and
accessory building, as well as by enclosing all equipment and structures with an ornamental
wrought iron fence.
Plot Plan No. 86 Revised No. 1 was submitted to the City of Temecula on October 29, 1991.
The case was originally scheduled for Development Review Committee (DRC) on November
21, 1991 and was subsequently placed on the December 5, 1991 DRC agenda where a
Planning Commission date was established.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject project is located at 30975 La Serena Way (east side of La Serena Way,
approximately 500 feet north of South General Kearny Road). See Exhibit A. Plot Plan No.
86, Revised No. 1 is an application requesting construction of a 225 square foot addition to
an existing structure, a 120 square foot generator pad and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site.
The 225 square foot addition will consist of a storage room and an equipment room and will
be a continuation of the architectural style of the existing structure. The proposed generator
will be enclosed by retaining walls to the north and east and a 5 foot high noise abatement
wall to the west. A 1,000 gallon propane tank will be on the southeast corner of the site.
The applicant has submitted Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. I in order to upgrade cable
facilities, to add additional stations, and to improve reception capabilities. The generator is
for emergency back-up communications networks (police, fire) and to broadcast information
to the general public. The propane tank (if full) would keep the generator running for
approximately 30 days. The landscaping, which is already in place will serve as adequate
screening for the proposed additions to the site and no additional landscaping is necessary.
S%STAFFRPT%S6-REV.PP 2
ANALYSIS
The proposed project is located in Planning Area 45 of Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita
Village). Article VIII e, Section 8.101 of Ordinance No. 348 is the applicable development
standard for the Planning Area. Building setbacks for front, side and rear are required to be
not less than 50 feet per Ordinance No. 348. The existing and proposed uses for the site do
not meet the minimum setback criteria. It is Staff's opinion, that due to the location of the
project in relation to surrounding uses that the 50 foot setback criteria is indirectly met. There
is a park to the north, south and west of the project site and a 120 foot wide Metropolitan
Water District easement to the east of the site.
Staff was concerned with the amount of noise and duration of operation of the proposed
generator. The applicant supplied information which indicated that at a distance of 200 feet,
the generator would create noise at 47 decibels, without a noise attenuation wall. The
proposed project includes a noise attenuation wall around the generator which would, in
Staff's opinion, reduce any impacts from noise to a level of less than significant.
Ingress and egress to the site is along a 20 foot wide recorded easement on the Metropolitan
Water District easement. Concern was raised regarding access to the site during inclement
weather. This issue has been rectified and has been incorporated in the Conditions of
Approval per the Department of PubliE Works. The condition requires that the 20 foot wide
access road to the property shall be improved to all weather standards prior to issuance of
certification of occupancy.
EXISTING ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project as conditioned, conforms with existing zoning (S-P) affecting the subject property
and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) land uses recommendations for the site
(S-P). As such, it is likely that Plot Plan 86, Revised No. I will be consistent with the City's
General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the plan's final adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (e) (1) of
the CEQA guidelines. Class I exemptions relates to the operation, repair, maintenance, or
minor alterations of existing facilities of both investor or publically-owned utilities used to
provide electric power, natural gas, sewage, or other public utility services provided that the
addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the
structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less.
S~STAFFRPT~6-REV.PP 3
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the analysis above, it is Staff's determination that impacts of the proposed project
will be negligible to the surrounding uses. The addition of a generator to the site will be an
asset to the City in the event of an emergency in terms of communications between agencies
(fire, police) and for the general public. The project as designed and conditioned also
conforms with the City's existing zoning ordinances and SWAP guidelines and as such will
also likely conform with the city's future General Plan.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 86 Revised No. I will be consistent
with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and
in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing
applicable city zoning and development ordinances.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the
City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives
anticipated in the City's General Plan.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
(Planning and Zoning Law).
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. The
proposed use will be placed on or adjacent to an existing structure.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines.
e
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The
project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects
design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way (South General Kearny
Road), which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic.
The design of the project tog!ether with the type of supporting 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 minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and her,in incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
mSTAFFRPT~.PP 4
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ approving Plot Plan 86 Revised
No. 1 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution No. 92-__- page 6
Conditions of Approval - page 11
Exhibits - page 16
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP Map
c. Zoning Map
d. Site Ran
e. Elevations
f. Floor Plan
g. Landscaping Ran
S%STAFRtFT~6-REV.PP 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-,_
S~STAFFRFT~86-REV.PP 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN
NO. 86, REVISED NO. 1 TO CONSTRUCT A 225 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, A 120 SQUARE
FOOT GENERATOR PAD (WITH GENERATOR) AND A 1,000
GALLON PROPANE TANK SITE (WITH PROPANE TANK) ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING .68 ACRES LOCATED AT 30975 LA
SERENA WAY (EAST SIDE OF LA SERENA WAY,
APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF SOUTH KEARNY ROAD)
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-050-015.
WHEREAS, Inland Valley Cablevision filed Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planni~ng Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on January 6, 1992 at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
S%STAFFRFT~86-REV.PP 7
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set
forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this
title, each of the following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1
proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements Of state law and local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
S~STAFFRPT~e6.-REV.PP 8
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and ger~eral welfare; conforms to the logical development of the
land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
The Planning Commission, in ~recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes
the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable~ probability that Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1, will be
consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals
and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections
65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law).
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. The proposed use will be placed on or adjacent to an existing structure.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area. The projeot conforms with applicable land use and development
regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's
existing site.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way (South General
Kearney Road), which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic.
The design of the project together with the type of supporting 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 minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference. Supporting documentation is attached.
S~STAFFRPT~6-REV.PP 9
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised Plot Plan proposed conforms to
the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and
future development of the surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
The proposed Revised Plot Plan is a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301
(e) (1) of the CEQA guidelines which pertains to minor additions to existing structures.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 86, Revised
No. 1 to construct a 225 square foot addition to an existing structure, a 120 square foot
generator pad (with generator) and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site (with propane) on a
parcel containing .68 acres located at 30975 La Serena Way (east side of la Serena Way,
approximately 500 feet north of South Kearny Road) and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
946-050-015 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
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 6th day of
January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: I
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~STA~r~T~&~'V.PP 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
$~STAFFRPT%B6-REV.PP I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No.1
Project Description: A 225 square foot addition to an existing
structure, a 120 square foot generator pad (with generator) and
a 1,000 gallon propane tank site (with tank).
Assessor's Parcel No. 946-050-015
Planning Department
B
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 225 square foot addition to an
existing structure, a 120 square foot generator pad (with generator) and a 1,000 gallon
propane tank site (with tank).
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 attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1. 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 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. This approval shall expire on January 6, 1994.
The development of the premises. shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions.
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.
S\STAFFRPI'%e6-REV.PP I 2
e
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
Metropolitan Water District
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
e
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D.
No roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on any building within the project site.
9. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
10.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
11.
The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval
which are included herein.
12.
The proposed generator shall be used for emergency purposes only, except for the
periodic testing of the equipment. Such testing shall only take place during business
hours (8 am - 5 pm) and only on weekdays.
13.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall receive approval from the
Director of Planning for landscape plans which adequately provide for the screening of
the generator, propane tank and the site. Said landscaping shall be installed prior to
the issuance of occupancy permits.
Public Works Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
14.
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;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
Parks and Recreation Department; and
Metropolitan Water District.
15.
The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval.
$~STAFFI~88-REV. Pp 13
The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
16.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public
Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
17.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted as directed by the Department of Public Works at the time of application for
grading plan check.
18.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
19.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
20.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with
appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
21.
All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
22.
The developer shall comply with the drainage requirements of the Department of Public
Works.
23.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed
on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
24.
If necessary, 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 recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Works for review.
25.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
26.
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 developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
S%STAFFRPT%86-REV.PP I 4
PRIOR
27.
of the bond shall be ,~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming I~enefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, 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; Drovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
A 20' wide access road to the property shall be improved to all-weather standards
within the recorded private access easement as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
S~STAF:FItPT~B6-REV.I=P 15
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S%STAFFRFT%86-REV.PP I 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
EX'HIBIf A
~q~lk RD ' ~
VICINITY
MAP
r pP
CASE No.RE'V~SEa Wo.I'
P.c. OATE /-.- (,,
CITY OF TEMECULA
~F×~I~IT ~
II
/
SWAP MAP )
r PP
CASE NO-KEVI3E:D
P.c. DATE [-{o-~2,
CITY OF TEMECULA 3'
RIR
I ITE
oJ ,#
r PP
CASE NO.REVISED No.I
ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE /
EXHIBIT
( CiTY OF TEMECULA
m
×
,.-,
'~,,-,
.~.-
~ :ZZZZZZZ=
z
o
Z
x
i=
ELEVATIONS
r NO PP f&
CASE '/e,F,V/SED No.I
~P.C. DATE/"'& "¢/2, j
T
CITY OF TEMECULA
E. XH limIT F
I 11'1' ' I
, ] i
m
FLOORPLAN
~ PP~ ~
CASE NO-/~ENiS~rj) No.I
DATE 1"~,-'~'/
CITY OF TEMECULA
N
/-AN/)SCAPE
· PI.,AN )
/' PP
CASE
p.c. ~ATE/-
ITEM NO.
14
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD JANUARY 28, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at PM
8:40 PM by President Ronald J. Parks.
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko,
City Attorney Scott F. Field and City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CONSENT CALI=NDAR
Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of Item No. 2 from the Consent Calendar.
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar
Item No. 1.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~toz,
Parks
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
1. Minutes
e
1.1
Approve the minutes of January 14, 1992 as mailed.
Analysis of Bond Proceeds
Director Lindemans stated he is concerned with the scheduling of the projects. City
Manager Dixon responded that the scheduling was taken from the Capital Improvement
Program. He explained that the synopsis was prepared based on what has been
approved in the past, and the actual scheduling will be established when the bonds are
sold.
Director Muf~oz stated he is concerned with the inclusion of the Auto Mall Marque in
the project listing for RDA.
4~MinO22892 -1 - O2/05192
CSD Minutes ]~nuary 28. 1992
General Manager Dixon explained as these projects become specific, they will come
before the Council.
It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Birdsall to receive and file
the schedule of Use of Bond Proceeds report. The motion was unanimously carried:
DISTRICT BUSINESS
3. Mid-year Review of FY 1991-9~ Budaet
Finance Officer Mary Jane Henry introduced the staff report.
It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Lindemans to approve staff
recommendations as follows:
3.1 Approve the Mid-year budget as set forth in Attachment "A".
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
CSD RESOLUTION NO. 92-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN ESTIMATED REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz,
Parks
None
None
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORT
None given.
4~Min022892 -2- 02/06/i2
CSD Minutes January 28. 1992
ADJOURNM;NT
It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:55 PM to
a meeting on February 11, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried.
Ronald J. Parks, President
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/TCSD Secretary
4%Min022892 -3- 02105192
ITEM NO.
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY (' ~' ~,r~'
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/Board of Directors
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
February 11, 1992
SUBJECT:
Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991 and the Statement
of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Six
Months Ended December 31, 1991
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file the Combining
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991 and the Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Six Months Ended December 31,
1991.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited
activity of the Temecula Community Services District for the six months ended
December 31, 1991.
The mid-year budget adjustments have been reflected on the attached financial
statement.
Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity.
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balance for the Six Months Ended December 31, 1991
1,1,1
~""'~E
×r..-e
0 wF--Q
0 c:
c~ ~ 0
I,i,i ~"
~' ~o °
E
TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AGENDA
ITEM
NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD JANUARY 28, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:55
PM.
PRESENT:
5 AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mufioz, Parks
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, Assistant City
Ochenduszko, City Attorney Scott F. Field end City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
Manager Mark
AGENCY BUSINESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Moore to approve the minutes
of the meeting of January 14, 1992 as mailed.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 MEMBERS:
NOES: 0 MEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks,
Mufioz
None
None
Executive Director Dixon reported that the Community Services District report also contained
Redevelopment Agency projects which will be brought to the Agency for Approval by late
Spring.
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
Member Parks reported that in recent meetings of California Contract Cities, it was reported
that the State through Prop 98, may be looking at obtaining funds from Redevelopment
Agencies to help balance the education budget. He asked that the agency look at low to
moderate income housing project for funding from the City's RDA housing increment.
RDAMIN~012892 -1 - 02106192
RDA Minutes January ~8.1992
ADJOURNM;NT
It was moved by Member Moore, seconded by Member Birdsall to adjourn at at 9:00 PM to
a meeting on February 11, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried.
J. Sal Mufioz, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
RDAMIN~,012892 -2- 02105192
ITEM NO.
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
February 11, 1992
SUBJECT:
Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991 and the Statement
of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Six
Months Ended December 31, 1991
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members receive and file the Combining
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991 and the Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Six Months Ended December 31,
1991.
DISCUSSION: The attached financial statements reflect the unaudited
activity of the Redevelopment Agency for the six months ended December 31, 1991.
The mid-year budget adjustments have been reflected on the attached financial
statement.
Please see the attached financial statements for analytical review of financial activity.
ATTACHMENTS:
Combining Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1991
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balance for the Six Months Ended December 31, 1991
r"
U (-)r","
0
Dr~ Z
ITEM NO. 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Redevelopment Agency Members
FROM:
Executive Director
DATE:
February 11, 1992
SUBJECT:
Owner Participation Agreement Between Temecula Redevelopment Agency and
California Curves, Inc. to Provide for a $50,000 Grant for Seismic Retrofitting
PREPARED BY: City Attorney Scott Field
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Owner
Participation Agreement on Behalf of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency,
subject to approval by the General Counsel as to form.
DISCUSSION: California Curves, Inc. (CCI) proposes to lease space within the
Leeds Building located at 43085 Business Park Drive, for purposes of operating a
manufacturing facility for television cabinets. The minimum term of the lease is three
years.
The Leeds Building is located over the Willard earthquake fault. In order for CCI to
occupy the building, it is necessary that a seismic retrofit be completed to bring the
lease space into compliance with the uniform building code.
Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, section 33420.1, the agency is authorized
to make grants for the purpose of seismic retrofitring. The total tenant improvements
necessary for CCI to occupy the space is approximately $208,500. It is
recommended that the agency fund $50,000 of this cost.
CCI currently employees up to 187 people and is located within three buildings in the
City of Temecula, manufacturing television cabinets for Sony U.S.A. In order to meet
production requirements it is necessary that they relocate to a larger production
facility either here in Temecula or somewhere out of state. The Leeds Building has
been vacant for five years, presumably due to the fact that it is located over the
Willard fault. This Owner Participation Agreement will not only insure retention of CCI
within the City but will also bring the Leeds Building up to code.
ATTACHMENT: A Draft OPA will be distributed prior to the City Council meeting.