HomeMy WebLinkAbout062392 CC Agenda NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
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 CAI~ENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
2
3
4
Minute~
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of June 4, 1992.
2.2 Approve the minutes of June 9, 1992.
Resolution Aporovinq List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Solicita~tion of Bids for
Winchester Road
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
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
the Extension of MarQarita Road from Solana Way to
Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the
extension of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
A~m,lcldoe231~2 2 0e/18/12
CommMnitv Facilities District 88-12 Aoreement With J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for
ProfesSional Engineerina Services Associated with I-15
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1
Authorize J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. to proceed with the final
preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for Rancho California
Road and Winchester Road interchanges as detailed under Schedule "C"
of the original contract approved December 18, 1990, and reallocate
$17,800.00 from the Schedule "C" budget to the Overland
Overcrossing Budget for extra work associated with the preparation of
the Project Study Report.
6
ContraCt Amendment No. 2 to Community Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez Corridor)
Engineqrina Contract with J.F. Davidson Associates. Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Approve Contract Amendment No. 2 with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
to provide additional engineering services in the amount of $53,434.
7
ContraCt Change Order No. 001 on Project No. PW92-01 - Street and Sidewalk
Improvements at Various Schools
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Approve Contract Change Order No. 001 for Project PW 92-01 in the
amount of 936,911.50;
7.2
Transfer 920,322.41 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriate 920,322.41 to Account No. 021-165-607-44-
5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
8
TemecUla Valley Via Del Coronado Storm Drain Stage 2, Tract No. 23267-3
CooPerative Aareement
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve Temecula Valley Via Del Coronado Storm Drain Stage 2 (Tract
No. 23267-3) Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District and the Presley Companies;
8.2
Authorize the execution and attestation of such agreement in its final
form by the Mayor and City Clerk.
AOendN062392 3 06111/~2
9
Development Services Tracking Software Acoujsition
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve the acquisition of the Sierra Computer Systems, Inc., (Sierra)
permit software package.
9.2 Approve the budget transfers included on Attachment A.
10
11
Solid Waste ProQram Rates and Services Resolution
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE SOLID WASTE SERVICES AND CORRESPONDING RATES
APPLICABLE TO FRANCHISED AND GRANDFATHERED HAULERS FOR THE
COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, RECYCLING, COMPOSTING, AND
DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND FOR
PROVIDING TEMPORARY BINIROLLOFF SERVICES IN ALL COMMERCIAL,
RESIDENTIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY
OF TEMECULA
Resolution Establishing the Basis for Various BuildinQ Permits and Valuation
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Continue to the meeting of July 28, 1992, to allow staff to meet with
the local Coordinating Committee regarding this resolution.
12
Contract Award for Plan Review Services
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Approve the award of contract to the Esgil Corporation, as the primary
plan review firm to provide complete plan review services to the Building
and Safety Department.
12.2
Approve the retention of Van Dorpe/Chou and Associates, Inc., and
Melad and Associates, to support the plan review needs of the City's
Building and Safety Department.
AgendNOe2392 4 06118/82
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
13 Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Uniform Building Code
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH
CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
STANDARDS. THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE,
THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, THE 1991 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE
1991 EDITION OFTHE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OFTHE
UNIFORM FIRE CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE
STANDARDS AND THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOLS,
SPAS AND HOT TUB CODE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences
delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
14
Zone Change No. 5631 and Vestina Tentative Tract MaD NO. 25320
(Continued from the meeting of 6/9/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320.
14.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 CHANGliNG THE ZONE FROM (R-R) RURAL
RESIDENTIAL TO ONE-FAMILY DWELLING (R-1) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD BETWEEN YNEZ AND MARGARITA
ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004
Agende/Oe2382 6 06/1
14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
15
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
~. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 WHICH PROPOSED TO
SUBDIVIDE A 56.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 102 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD BETWEEN YNEZ AND MARGARITA ROADS AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004
Aooeal iNo. 26 (Aooeal of Condition of ADoroval No. 24 Reouirina a Block Wall Alone
the SoUthern and Northern Portions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1)
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING APPEAL NO. 26 ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AND THE EAST
SIDE OF INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF THE
INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-080-054
16
AooealiNo. 20 for Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1 and
va'riande No. 11 - To-Mac Enqineerincj
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
APPEAL NO. 20, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
PLOT PLAN NO. 10605, AMENDMENT NO. 1, REVISED PERMIT NO. I AND
VARIANCE NO. 11 TO ALLOW A GRAVEL PARKING LOT LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET, 100 FEET WEST OF MERCEDES
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
.a~genda/062312
06/11/~2
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting:i Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting, June 24, 1992,
6:00 PM, Main Conference Room, City Hall, Temecula, California
Next regular meeting: July 14, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California
AgendNOe23a2
7 061"18/02
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES'DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00)
CALL TO ORD!~R:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Next in Order:
President Ronald J. Parks
Ordinance: No. 92-
Resolution: No. 92-
DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks
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 Minute~
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of June 9, 1992.
PUBLIC HEARING
2
TemecUla Community Services District Assessments (Rates and Charges) - FY 1992-
93
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS, STREET LIGHTING, SLOPE MAINTENANCE
AND RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR
1992-93
Agende/O62392 8 0611 1/92
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
Next regular meeting July 14, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
Agende/082382 9 Oell 8/12
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 92-
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson J. Sal Mu~oz presiding
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks,
Mu~oz
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a
completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you
are called to speak, please come forward and state your name
and address for the record.
AGENCY BUSINESS
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 9, 1992.
Allocation of Funds for Old Town Soecific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Appropriate $50,000 from Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Fund Balance
for the Old Town Specific Plan.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting July 14, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816, Temecula, California
Agerid NO62392 10 O6118/92
PROCLAMATIONS
.The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has a substantial number of licensed Amateur Radio
operators who have demonstrated their value in public assistance by providing emergency radio
communications; and
WHEREAS, these Amateur Radio operators donate their services free of charge to the
City, in the interest of the citizens of the City as well as the world; and
WHEREAS, these Amateur Radio operators are on alert for any emergency, local or
world-wide, and practice their communication skills during the American Radio Relay League,
Inc., Field Day exercise; and
WIIF~REAS, this year's Amateur Radio Field Day will take place on June 27-28, 1992;
NOW, IltEREFORE, I Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City
of Temecula, hereby proclaim June 27-28, 1992 to be:
AMATEUR RADIO WEEK 1992
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 23rd day of June, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley is a place of natural beauty and has attracted residents
seeking a balanc~ community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula strives to provide its citizens with the highest quality
lifestyle possible; and
WB'EI~_EAS, the arts have become an integral part of life and have been proven to build
and enhance self esteem; and
WHEREAS, the Arts Council of the Temecula has planned Arts Festival '92 with the
support of the City of Temecula, to showcase the visual and performing arts within the
community,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City
of Temecuh, hereby proclaim the month of July, 1992 to be:
THE MONTH OF THE ARTS
in the City of Temecula, and encourage all of the men, women and children of our community
to join in celebrating the arts by enjoying the many events planned for Arts Festival '92.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 23rd day of June, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM
1
ITEM
2
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD JUNE 4, 1992
A special meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:39 PM in the
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Ternecula, California. Mayor Patricia H.
Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk
June S. Greek.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by President Jay Armstrong, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the pledge of allegiance by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans.
Mayor Birdsall read into the record a letter from Congressmen Ron Packard and AI McCandless
to Commissioner Gene McNary of the Immigration and Naturalization Service requesting
information regarding the operation of border checkpoints on I-5 and I-15.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Resolution of Condolences
Mayor Birdsall requested that City Clerk June Greek read the text of a resolution of
condolences aloud. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by
Councilmember Moore to adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 9246
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
EXPRESSING SINCERE CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS OF
THE JUNE 2, 1992 TRAGEDY
The City Clerk presented copies of the resolution to representatives of the Davis,
Emelio and Murrillo families.
Minutee%06%04~92 -1- O6115~92
City Council Minutes
June 4.1992
2. Announcements
Mayor Birdsall announced the City Council of the City of Canyon Lake had adopted a
resolution of condolences at their meeting of June 3, 1992 and requested the City
Clerk tO read the text aloud. She also requested that the City Clerk read the specifics
of funeral arrangements for the victims into the record.
Mayor 'Birdsall read a news release into the record from the U.S. Department of
Justice,. Immigration and Naturalization Service which advised that a personal
representative of Commissioner Gene McNary has been directed to investigate al
aspects of the tragedy.
Inciderlt Reports
Chief Of Police Rick Sayre presented a staff report in which he requested that if
witnesses had not spoken with his department they do so as quickly as possible. He
advised the City Council that this matter is being treated as a homicide investigation
and therefore he is unable to discuss any of the specifics at this time.
In response to a question from Councilmember Mu~oz, Chief Sayre stated the
investigation is expected to take at least three weeks.
Mayor !Pro Tern Lindemans questioned the health of the individuals who were injured
in the Suburban vehicle. Chief Sayre reported that one of the passengers in that
vehicle is in very critical condition and that the other eleven passengers are all in
satisfactory condition.
Councilmember Parks asked where the pursuit was initiated. Chief Sayre responded
that the pursuit began with surveillance in San Diego by an illegal alien smuggling
investigation unit.
Division Chief Jim Wright of the Temecula Fire Services presented a report in which
he commended the Murrieta Fire Department, the Goodhew Ambulance Service staff
and the citizens of Temecula who responded to this tragedy for the exemplary manner
in which they handled this most difficult situation.
City Manager Dixon gave a brief report outlining the resolve of the City Council, staff
and citizens to determine the reasons for this tragedy. He reported that the meeting
he attempted to hold with the Border Patrol/INS and the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
and City staff earlier in the day had not taken place and he read a statement into the
record from Gustavo De La Vina, Chief Patrol Agent of the INS. Mr. Dixon also
advised that a meeting scheduled on Friday, June 5, 1992, at 10:00 AM for the
purpose of bringing together all public safety agencies that operate in the City of
Temecula to discuss pursuit and surveillance policies, would not be artended by
representatives of the INS. In summary the City Manager explained that the City will
IVinutel~06~04~.92 -2- O6115/92
CiW Council Minutes
June 4,1992
continue to seek ways to assure the safety and welfare of the people of Temecula and
will work with all agencies to correct policies that do not fit into that mission.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked legal counsel if the City has the right to order the INS
to appear at the meeting scheduled for Friday, June 5th. City Attorney Scott Field
replied that the City can not subpoena the INS to attend a meeting, but he advised he
is pursuing an investigation into the City seeking a temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction to restrict high speed pursuit activity.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz that
the Immigration and Naturalization Service be ordered to attend a meeting on Friday,
June 5, 1992 at 10:00 AM to be held at the Temecula City Hall for the purpose of
meeting with all law enforcement agencies who have cause to operate in the City of
Temecula. Failure to attend this meeting will result in the City holding the Immigration
and Naturalization Service responsible for any death which might occur as the result
of pursuits conducted in this City during the interim period of this meeting and such
time as the Immigration and Naturalization Service does appear to meet and confer
with the City for the purpose of reaching settlement on the matter of conduct of
vehicular pursuits within the boundaries of the .City of Temecula.
It was suggested by Councilmember Mu~oz that staff be directed to send a letter to
the INS requesting their cooperation in investigation the pursuit policies of the Border
Patrol.
Councilmember Moore stated that she concurs with Councilmember Mu~oz and feels
a letter requesting cooperation would be much more effective than issuing a demand
of a federal agency.
The motion was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore
ABSENT: I
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
City Manager Dixon stated that a FAX will be sent first thing in the morning to the INS
in Washington, DC, as well as one advising Congressmen McCandless and Packard of
the Council's action.
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall declared a recess at 8:25 PM.
PM with all members present.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:45
Minutes%06\04~92 -3- 06/15/92
City Council Minutew
June 4,1992
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Birdsall invited public comments and requested that the speakers attempt to be
brief to: allow for the large number of speakers who wish to be heard.
Debbie Turner, (no address given), stated she is the wife of a Border Patrol Agent and
asked that the pursuit policies be attacked not the members of the agency who are
charged with the responsibility for upholding those policies.
Ray Cimo, 26370 Gothridge Lane, Homoland, addressed the matter of high speed
pursuits and stated that he had been a victim of this type of pursuit. He stated the
policy needs to be changed for the safety of the public.
Dr. Juan A Rodriquez, 132 W. Broadway, San Diego, represent!ng the National
Chican0 Legal Rights Commission spoke regarding the need for justice for all of the
victims~ He suggested that all of the citizens work together toward that aim.
Carlos Pelayo, 244 E. Naples Street, Chula Vista, representing Partido Nacional La Raza
Unida, spoke in general opposition to the policies of the INS.
Joe G0mez, representing the families of Gloria and Jose Murillo, thanked the
community for its generous outpouring of support and sympathy and stated that the
family is anxious to see that any changes in safety policies be made to assure this
tragedy not be repeated.
Ella Esparza, publisher of the spanish language newspaper El Remate, thanked the
community on 'behalf of the Murillo family, and asked that the City provide research
that is obtained regarding the policies allowing pursuits by all law enforcement
agencies as well as information on the history of deaths caused by INS pursuits over
a five year period.
Robert Henderson, P.O. Box 438, Murrieta, spoke in favor of ending all high speed
chases of this sort.
Bob Fitkin, 39700 Ridgedale Drive, Murrieta, spoke in favor of Neighborhood Watch
becoming active in reporting any high speed pursuit activities in the area.
Missy Wonacott, 30804 Calvado Court, spoke in opposition to high speed pursuits by
the Border Patrol and to other surveillance practices of that agency.
Todd Mason, 30931 Miraloma Drive, a friend of victim Todd Davis, stated the war
against illegal aliens needs to be fought at the border, not on the streets of Temecula.
Becky O'Toole, Kristin Roy, Andrea Ludall, and Jan Preisandanz announced that the
students of Temecula Valley High will be holding a car wash on June 6th and 7th to
raise money to assist the families of the accident victims.
Minutee%O6\O4~92 -4- O6115/92
City Council Minutes
June 4.1992
Joe Hreha, representing the City of Temecula, advised that the students of the high
school have' asked the City to assist in erecting a memorial at the site and he reported
that over $2,000 has been pledged to construct a monument.
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 9:35 PM, the meeting was reconvened at 9:45 PM
with all councilmembers present.
Roberto Martinez, 1446 Front Street, Director of the AFSC, spoke regarding the need
to change the policies of the Border Patrol and INS.
Dawn Chemello, 40296 Tanager Circle, spoke in opposition to allowing any further
pursuits on city streets.
Dawn Beresovoy, 2401 Catalino Circle, Oceanside, spoke in opposition to placing the
blame for this accident on all Border Patrol agents.
Stoney Mitich, representing the Dimension Young Adult Dance Club, stated the dance
club would like to offer any help they can to raise funds to benefit the families of the
victims.
Max O. Avalos, 3800 Devonshire Ave., Hemet, spoke regarding the need to correct
INS policies.
Sylvia Glazer, 40987 Morning Glory, Murrieta, stated she is active in circulating a
policy, which currently has over 500 signatures of Temecula and Murrieta residents,
to close the Immigration and Naturalization Servioe checkpoint station in Temecula.
John Ruffner, 31268 Felicita Road, spoke in opposition to INS pursuit policies.
R. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, spoke in opposition to high speed border patrol
pursuits being conducted in Temecula.
Doris Tamez, spoke on behalf of the Border Patrol, and requested the community's
support of this law enforcement agency.
Ralph A. Canete, 45661 Piute Street, spoke in opposition to the action of the border
patrol in this incident and recommended that the City look into taking action against
the Border Patrolman driving the pursuit vehicle.
Brian Wolfe, 38919 DeLuz Road, described an incident in which he was injured during
a stop by the Border Patrol.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to extend
the meeting to the hour of 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
Minutes~06\04\92 -5- 06115./92
Ciw Council Minutes
June4.1992
Lecius P. Richardson, 30044 LaPrimavera, spoke in support of the Border Patrol and
the positive role they have played in this community.
Sam Levine, 42367 Cosmic Drive, representing the Senior Golden Years of Temecula
Valley, spoke in favor of conducting a complete investigation that gets to the root of
the problem.
John B. Rogers, 27935 Calle Visa Lejos, representing the Santa Rosa Community
Services District, stated that the Board of Directors of that organization would like to
offer their cooperation to adopt a policy which will match the City of Temecula's with
regard to high speed pursuits being allowed.
Jack Barber, 30552 Southern Cross Road, spoke regarding the hazardous incidents
caused by Border Patrol actions on several occasions.
Traci V~ss, (no address given), spoke regarding the speed she observed the Border
Patrol vehicle traveling during the incident.
Ruble Richardson, 30041 LaPrimavera, spoke in favor of Border Patrol activities in the
community and cited instances of community assistance provided by the Border Patrol.
Allan R. McDonald, 43466 Manzano Drive, praised the efforts of the City's Police and
Fire Department personnel during this tragedy and he recommended that the City take
action to bring about changes in the INS policies.
Robert iLinderoth, 42036 Moraga Road, appealed for calm and a rational approach to
finding ;solutions to the issues being faced.
Maureen Whitehead, 40235 Benwood Court spoke regarding the need for speed
controls to be installed on the City streets. She asked that stop signs 'and signals be
installed as quickly as possible.
Keith Whitehead, 40235 Benwood Court recommended that the deep root of the
problem seems to be a policy matter that needs to be addressed with the Federal
Government.
Linda Cloughen, 41304 Bravos Court, spoke regarding the need for awareness by all
residents of lights and sirens on emergency vehicles.
AI Curiel, 31194 Comotilo Court, spoke regarding the problems of the INS policies and
recommended the City Council retain the services of a "Blue Ribbon" committee to
investigate this incident.
Janice Duncan, 30890 White Rocks Circle, spoke in opposition to high speed pursuits
being allowed to occur in the area of schools. She suggested that surveillance should
be by helicopter of suspected illegal aliens.
Minutee~06~,04~92 -6- 06115/92
City Council Minutes
June 4,1992
Cindy Cortez, 725 Clearwater Drive, spoke regarding the fear that students are
experiencing and the need for counseling in the wake of this tragedy.'
Mark Johnson, representing the Citizen Action Committee for removal of U.S. Border
Patrol from the City of Temecula, described the information contained in a packet
given to the members of the City Council and requested help from the community in
their efforts to have the Border Patrol Station closed in Temecula.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to
extend the meeting to the hour of 12 midnight. The motion was unanimously carried.
Thomas J. Corcoran, III, 41840 Skywood Drive, requested that the focus be on the
immediate problems.
Therese McLeod, 28680 Pujol Street, spoke in favor of helping our neighbors in Mexico
to solve the illegal immigration problem.
Jean McLaughlin, 31494 Avenida Del Reposo, stated her concerns with the Border
Patrol's disregard of the speed laws even when not engaged in pursuits, and with their
policy of shining bright lights into the faces of oncoming drivers during the nighttime
hours.
Lora Breto, 42112 Paseo Del Sol, spoke in opposition to the use of high speed pursuits
in the City of Temecula.
Margery Fisher, (no address given) spoke regarding excessive use of authority by the
Border Patrol.
Councilmember Mu~oz suggested that the City Council explore the recommendation
that the City seek a temporary restraining order or injunction to restrict pursuits by the
INS and that the matter of use of helicopters be explored. He also suggested that the
City Council look at all of the immigration problems that have been discussed with
compassion.
Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans requested that the City Council not leave the meeting
without taking some action.
Councilmember Moore asked that the City Council wait until after the meeting
scheduled for June 5th, is completed before initiating any further action.
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans "to
direct staff to explore the possibility of immediately seeing a temporary injunction
against the INS from pursuing illegal aliens within the community of Temecula; and
that staff further look into the possibility of getting the cooperation of the other public
safety agencies that operate in the City against having similar restraints until after we
Minutes~06\04%92 -7- 06115/92
City Council Minute~ June 4. 1992
have had a thorough investigation of this mater the opportunity to see what policies
we want to have and encourage these agencies to have within our community."
The motion was unanimously carried.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
No further reports given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
CITY COUNCIl, REPORTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
adjourn at 12:02 AM to an executive session to be held Tuesday, June 9, 1992 at 5:30 PM
at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion
was unanimously carried.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Minutee\06%04~92 -8- 06115/92
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD JUNE 9, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:36 PM in the
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Patricia H.
Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk
June S. Greek.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Birdsall declared a recess to an executive session at 5:37 PM pursuant to Government
Code Section 94956.9 (b) and (c).
Mayor Birdsall convened the regular meeting with all members present at 7:02 PM.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Associate Pastor Spencer Knight, Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the pledge of allegiance by Councilmember Lindemans.
Mayor Birdsall made the following announcement regarding action taken in closed session:
"Earlier tonight, the City Council met in Closed Session with Legal Counsel. The City Council
took action to direct the City Attorney to file an action, no later than Monday, against the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to have their pursuit policy declared to be
unreasonable; and to preclude the I.N.S. from conducting pursuits until they adopt a
reasonable pursuit policy which adheres to current California law."
PRESENTATIONS/
PRO.CLAMATIONS
Mayor Birdsall announced the winners of the Bicycle Safety Essay Contest. She thanked
Motor Officer Mike Pino and Jeff Miller, of the Temecula Target Department Store, who co-
sponsored the contest and who provided the mountain bikes for the first place winners.
Second place winners were awarded safety helmets and third place winners received Savings
Bonds which were provided by the Police Department staff. The winners are listed as follows:
CCMIN\060~t92 -1 - 06116/92
City Council Minu'tel~
6th Grade Bovl~
First Place
Second Place
Third Place
6th Grade Girls
First Place
Second Place
Third Place
7th Grade Bovi~
First Place
Second Place
Third Place
7th Grade Girl1~
Armando Montano
Jon Ayers
Chris Zavala
Vanessa Beeson
Alicia Oneil
Elyssa Rutledge
David Torres
Robert Allen Bledsoe, Jr.
Charles Hanchett
June 9.1992
Margarita Middle School
Margarita Middle School
Margarita Middle School
Margarita Middle School
Linfieid
Margarita Middle School
Margarita Middle School (Special Education
Student)
Linfield
Linfield
First Place Jessica Buscema Linfield
Second Place Jill Bowman Linfield
Third Place ~ Rachael Bruce Linfield
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 7:08 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 7:15 PM.
PUBLIC FORUM
Stony Mitich, 28822 Front Street, announced a fund raiser to assist the families of the
accident victims, to be held Thursday, June 18th, 6:00 PM, at the Teen Dance Club. He
stated a wide range of music would be played and all funds raised would be donated to the
Temecula Valley High School Memorial Fund.
Bobbie Young, 45316 Esmerado Court, addressed the City Council regarding the need to
change the INS Pursuit Policy rather than blaming individual members of the Border Patrol.
She further stated that she is in support of the INS remaining in the City of Temecula, and
emphasized the need to enforce the immigration laws of this country.
Chris Martinelli, 30255 Corte Cantania, spoke regarding a photograph that appeared in the
Press EnterpriSe of the accident on June 2nd and asked that the City Council send a formal
letter of protest against the publication of this type of photograph.
CCMIN%060992 -2- 06116/92
City Council Minutes
June 9.1992
Pat Keller, 39201 Solinas Drive, addressed the City Council regarding the need to create
neighborhood councils to encompass the City as well as those in our sphere of influence and
surrounding communities· She stated she is specifically concerned about the problem in the
airport perimeter.
Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans stated the City does have several commissions which address the
concerns that Ms. Keller outlined.
City Manager Dixon stated that the Community Services Department is working on the
development of this type of committee·
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans requested that Item No. 7 be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Parks requested a clarification on Item No. 8 regarding the Gann Limit.
Finance Officer, Mary Jane Henry, explained it is a statutory requirement that the City
establish a Gann Limit on the November ballot·
City Attorney Field stated that this may be amended at a later date.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1-6, 8 and 9.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: '5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz, 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 May 26, 1992.
CCMIN\060992 -3- 06116/92
CiW Council Minutes
June 9. 1992
Resolut~n Aoorovino List of Demands
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 9247
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31.1992. Statement of Revenues an ChanQes
in Fund Balance
4.1
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1992 and
the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 1992.
4.2'
Appropriate $15,600 for City Council salaries related to Temecula
Community Services District (TCSD) and Redevelopment Agency (RDA)
meetings.
4.3
Appropriate $450,000 for Planning consulting fees. Of this total, it is
recommended that $20,000 be funded with an operating transfer in
from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
4.4
Appropriate $60,000 from Engineering development review.
Citv ManacJerTs' Contract
5.1
Authorize the mayor to execute the attached letter amending the City
Manager's Agreement to provide that the City will make a loan of up to
ninety percent (90%) of the purchase price for a home within the City,
not to exceed a loan amount of $150,000.00.
Annual Review of City Conflict of Interest Code
6.1
Approve amendments to the City's Conflict of Interest Code and Direct
the City Clerk to forward the amended code to the Fair Political
Practices Commission.
6.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 9248
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
CCMIN%060992 -4- 06116/92
Ciw Council Minutes
Resolution Establishing Gann Appropriation Limit for FY 1992-93
8,1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO, 92-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 1992-93
June 9.1992
TEMECULA
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
Second Reading of Ordinance 92-14 - Subdivision and Land Use
9.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO, 90-19 AND ESTABLISHING DECISION-MAKING
AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Addition to the Airport Disclosure Condition of ADOrOval for Vesting Tentative Tract
MaD No, 25004
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, stated he received a call from Mayor Pro Tem
Lindemans requesting some clarifying language in respect to the condition on page 3
of the report for Item No. 7. He explained that the changes are to be inserted at the
end of the first sentence, prior to airport by inserting the word "comprehensive". In
the next sentence, prior to airport the word "permanent" should be inserted prior to
airport influence area. He explained this would further clarify that this is the
permanent plan, not the interim plan.
Councilmember Mu~oz objected to the addition of a "void" clause, stating he feels that
property owners in the area need to be notified, whether or not they are within the
adopted airport influence area.
Councilmember Parks said a line must be drawn, otherwise all houses in the City of
Temecula would be required to have a disclosure statement.
CCMIN%060992 -5- 06116/92
City Council Minute~
June 9,1992
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
7.1 Receive and file the attached condition as amended.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
Mur~oz
None
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 7:58 PM to accommodate the previously scheduled
Community Services District Meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the Community
Services District Meeting at 8:40 PM.
PUBLIC HEAR(NGS
10. Ordinance Amendine Fire Protection Reouirements
Tony Elmo, Chief Building Official, presented the staff report.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:42 PM. Hearing no requests to speak,
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:43 PM.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
10.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 546, "FIRE
pROTECTION" ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BY
AMENDING DIVISION VIII, FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
BUILDINGS, INSTALLATION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE SYSTEMS
AND APPLIANCES
CCMIN'~060992 -6- 06116/92
City Council Minutes
June 9.1992
10.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A
DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
MODIFICATIONS TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 546 "FIRE
PROTECTION" ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
The motion was unanimously carried.
11.
Ordinan;e Adooting and Amending Various Buildino Codes and Resolution Establishino
Buildina Valuation and Mis(;ellane~us Fee Schedules
Chief Building Official Tony Elmo, .presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks asked how long it has taken to accumulate this information and
how much time interested parties have been given to review the changes. Mr. Elmo
answered it has taken approximately three months to accumulate this information and
it was sent out for review 10 days ago.
Councilmember Parks expressed concern that 10 days is not enough time to review
these changes, since they represent an increase in fees, and asked that this matter be
continued for two weeks in order to allow review by the building industry.
City Manager Dixon suggested that the Council approve the first reading of the
ordinance, approve the resolution dealing with modifications of the 1992 Building
Codes, and continue the fee basis resolution for two weeks.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:52 PM.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, stated he feels the industry would welcome
the opportunity to review these changes and would be in favor of a continuance.
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:56 PM.
CCMIN\060992 -7- 06116/92
CiW Council Minutes
June 9. 1992
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve
staff recommendations 11.1 and 11.3 as follows and continue recommendation 11.2;
a Resol!ution setting forth the fee basis for various permits not specially listed in the
most Current adopted edition of the Uniform Administrative Code and the
Determination of Building Construction Valuation, to the meeting of June 23, 1992.
11.1
Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH
CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
~TANDARDS. THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE,
THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, THE 1991 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE
1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, AND THE 1991 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOLS, SPAS AND HOT TUB CODE
11.3
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING
FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS
BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1991
EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE AND THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
PLUMBING CODE AND THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL
CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
The motion was unanimously carried.
12.
Tentative Tract MaD 23209, Laverda Emond/Michael Lundin
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks clarified that the Butterfield Stage Road alignment has been
lowered to its lowest possible point to minimize the impact on the vineyards. Director
of Public Works Tim Serlet confirmed this, and stated the wineries are in agreement.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 9:05 PM.
CCMIN%060992 -8- 06116/92
CiW Council Minutes June 9, 1992
Robert Kemble, 28765 Single Oak Drive, representing the applicant, stated the project
has been substantially revised in response to direction from Council. He further stated
the applicant has worked closely with City staff and surrounding neighbors, and feel
Council's direction has been met.
Nelson Betancourt, 40835 Calls Medusa, spoke in opposition to approval of the tract
map, stating a project of 220 homes that will impact Calls Medusa, and asked that a
condition be added requiring the developer to pay for a portion of the extension to
Nicolas Road to mitigate these problems.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 9:11 PM to change the tape. The meeting
reconvened at 9:12 PM.
Sean Browning, 31752 Pools Court, spoke in opposition, due to traffic concerns and
the impact on Rancho Elementary School parking.
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 9:17 PM.
Councilmember Parks asked if a traffic study was done on this project. Director of
Public Works Tim Serlet answered a determination was made from the County that a
traffic study was not needed.
Councilmember Mu~oz stated he feels the focus should be placed on improving
Butterfield Stage Road in a timely manner, because this will ultimately solve the
problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans suggested that a condition be added to require a traffic
study, with the focus on Calle Medusa traffic mitigation.
City Att:orney Field suggested the wording as follows: Prior to recordation of the final
map, a focused traffic study shall be completed to establish mitigation measures to
address access to the tract along Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. Such
mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the tract map conditions.
Mayor Birdsall reopened the public hearing at 9:36 PM to ask the applicant if this
additional condition would be agreeable.
Robert Kemble, representing the applicant, stated he feels a traffic study will not reveal
anything that is not already known. He further stated he feels it is unfair to place the
entire burden on this particular project.
Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans asked if the applicant=would be willing to pay his fair share.
Mr. Kemble stated this would be agreeable.
City Attorney Field suggested the following additional condition: "Prior to recordetion
of the final map, an Assessment District or other public financing mechanism, shall be
established to address access to the Tract along Butterfield Stage Road and Nicholas
CCMIN~O60992 -9- O6116/~2
CiW Council Minutes
June 9, 1992
Road. The subdivider shall participate in and pay its fair share of any such Assessment
District or other public financing mechanism."
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
approve staff recommendation, with the additional condition as follows: Prior to
recordation of the final map, an Assessment District or other public financing
mechanism, shall be established to address access to the Tract along Butterfield Stage
Road and Nicolas Road. The subdivider shall participate in an and pay its fair share of
any such Assessment District or other public· financing mechanism.
12.1
Re-Affirm the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 23209;
12.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23209 TO SUBDIVIDE 80 ACRES
INTO A 220 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH A 2.9 ACRE PARK
LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF LA SERENA WAY AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-310-018 THROUGH 032
The motion was unanimously carried.
13.
ADOeal NO. 25 for Variance No. 10. Denial of a Proposed 55 Foot Hiah Freewav Sign
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked if the requested variance was for a limited amount
of time. Mr. Thornhill answered that the variance request does not have a time
limitation.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 9:45 PM.
Lou Kashmere, 29115 Front Street, stated he would not be opposed to a time
limitation on this variance, but is asking that a 55 foot sign be allowed for a period of
time while his business is being established.
David Flowers, 28980 Front Street, Manager of Ramada Inn, spoke in support of the
variance and stated he believes this sign will generate business from the Interstate that
will profit other businesses, such as his, in Old Town.
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 9:50 PM.
CCMIN~060992 - 10- 06116/92
City Council Minutes
June 9. 1992
Councilmember Mur~oz stated he feels the Planning Commission has expressed
concerns, and their findings ere quite satisfactory to warrant the denial of ordinance.
Councilmember Moore also stated her opposition to this type of sign.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans stated he does not have a problem with allowing a 55 foot
sign for a period of two years, to allow the business to become established.
Councilmember Parks stated he does not see a large difference between 45 and 55
feet and would support such a variance for a two year period, stating businesses need
as much exposure as possible in these difficult economic times.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
approve staff recommendation, with the additional condition that the variance be
approved for a two year period and would require an extension for any additional time.
City Manager Dixon expressed concern that this may get into an abatement situation
at the end of the two year period.
City Attorney Field stated that an abatement issue has occurred in the past in other
areas and suggested the following condition: "The applicant agrees to enter into an
agreement stipulating that if at the end of a two year period, the City Council does not
grant an extension to this variance, the sign will automatically be reduced to a height
of 45 feet at the owners expense.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans agreed to amend the motion, Councilmember Parks agreed
to amend his-second.
13.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
APPROVING APPEAL NO. 25, VARIANCE NO. 10, TO INSTALL A 55 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
The motion was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Parks, Birdsall
NOES:
2 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Moore, Mu~oz
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CCMIN\060992 -11 - 06/16/92
CiW Council Minutes
June 9. 1992
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to extend the
meeting for 15 minutes. The motion was unanimously carried.
14.
Aooeal No. 23 for Parcel MaD No. 22515. Third Extension of Time
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 10:02 PM.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Ste N, stated he is available to respond to
questions.
Hearing no questions from Council or public comments, Mayor Birdsall closed the
public hearing at 10:02 PM.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING APPEAL NO. 23, TO ELIMINATE CONDITION NO. 12 FOR THE
THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22515
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF
FRONT STREET
15.
Chanae of Zone No. 5361 and Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 25320
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 9:55 PM.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue the public hearing until the meeting of June 23, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Mu~oz requested that this item be placed first on the next agenda
since several people have waited to speak on the issue.
CCMIN\080992 -12- 06116/92
,
CiW Council Minutes
June 9,1992
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Dixon stated he talked with Superintendent Pat Navotney, the City's Teen
Council and the Student Body Council at the Temecula High School who will work together
to determine an appropriate location for memorials at the high school. He stated it will be a
joint effort between the schools and the City.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans stated he was present at the funerals of the victims of last week's
tragedy as the representative of the City.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to adjourn
at 10:05 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
CCMIN\060992 - 13- 06116/92
ITEM NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTMN
CLMMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been
audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of
$1,434,165.09
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPT!~.D, this 23rd day of June, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
'~ 3~Rzmos 262 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
06/05/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
06/12/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
05/16/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
06/04/92 TOTALPAYROLL:
TCSD REFUND CHECKS:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 6/23/92 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
011
016
019
019
021
029
PAYROLL:
001
019
GENERAL
RANCHO CA. RAOD REIMB. DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND (RDA)
TCSD
TCSC REFUND CHECKS
CAPITAL PROJECTS-CITY
CAPITAL PROJECT-TCSD
GENERAL (PAYROLL)
TCSD (PAYROL~
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE
$720,103.66
05,300.47
$105,874.03
$211,680.5S
$1,434,165.09
$264,955.27
$119,017.99
$496.95
$622,947.48
$21 i ,680.56
$105,121.67
$3,070.54
$1,327,290.48
$73,091.70
$33,782.93
$105,874.65
$1,434,1 65,09
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Fiscal Year: 19~2 Checi: Register StEtlan: 5:~c
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice ~ate P/O Dat~ DescriPtion 6ross Discount Net
~000101S7 05/14/92 CALETHRI CALIFORNIA ETHNIC RINORITY
051292 05/12/92 05/12192 iORKSHOPIS/22R21NP,Sfi 60,00 0,00 60,00
00010246 05127192 POSTBAST POSTRASTER
052692 05127192
Check Totals:
05/27/92 ASSESRENT REFUND CHKS
60.00 0.00 60.00
411,80 0.00 411,80
00010332 06103/92 ~,A,B,S, ~,A.R.8,
060392 06105/92
Check Totals: 411.80
06103192 HEARING ARGITRATIDNIA~ FEES 600.00
0.00 411.80
0,00 600,00
00010333 06104192 POSTflAST POSTRASTER
060492 0&104192
Check Totals:
06104192 ASSRNT RFND BULK NAILING
600.00 0.00 600,00
34,80 0,00 34.80
Check Totals:
00010335 06/05/92 AEI SECU AEI SECURITY INC,
481 05/28192 11409 04101192 3UNE SECURITY/TEEN CENTER
34.B0 0.00 34,80
$5,00 0,00 $5,00
00010336 06105/92 APPLEONE APPLE OE
1435930 05/20/92 11541
Check Totals:
04122192 TERP,SERV, NE 5/16/92
55.00 0.00 55,00
398.80 0.00 398.80
00010357 06/05/92 BARGAIN
032592
00010538 06/05/92 BENEFIT
060192
OARGAIN BULLETIN
04/01/92 11622
BENEFIT AWERIgA
0~101192
Check Totals:
04101/92 TEEN CENTER ADVERTISEENT
Check Totals:
06/01192 5126/92 RIER8 HZD,IDENTAL PLH
398.80 0.00 598.80
122.00 0.00 122.00
122.00 0.00 122;00
2,544.28 0.00 2,544.28
Check Totals:
00010339 06t05/92 CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
308511221 04101192 11605 05114192 EXTRA WORK ORDERS;SLOPES,ETC
2~544.28 0.00 2,544.28
490.60 0.00 490.60
00010340 06/05!92 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN
045092 04130192 11467 04106/92
00491 05/26192 10938 10/02/91
272010257 05121192 10941 I0/02191
03937 04/24/92 10941 10/02/91
05340 04127192 10941 10102/91
0279/6524 04/IM92 10941 10/02191
0279/65240 04/13/92 10938 10/02/91
040192 04101/92 10626 04/01/92
040192-1 04/01R2 10626 04/01/92
Check Totals:
ADS FOR EASTER EBB HUNI;1CSD
LEGAL NOTICES; PLANNING DEPT,
LEGAL NOTICES; CITY CLERK
LEGAL NDTICE8; CITY CLERK
LEGAL NOIlCEG; CITY CLERK
LEGAL NOTICES; CITY CLERK
LEGAL NOTICES; PLANNINB DEPI,
ADVERTISIRGI5101192
ADVERTISIRB/2123/92
490.60 Q.O0 490.60
317,76 0,00 317,76
27.10 0.00 27,10
25.56 0,00 25,56
21.30 0,00 21.50
11,62 0,00 11.62
12.59 0.00 12.39
61.18 0,00 61.18
195.62 0.00 195.~2
I95.62 0.00 195.62
00010541 06/05/92 CALWEST
082%2A
08229tA
Check Totals:
CAL WEST RENTAL CENTER
05111/92 i1499 03f31192 RENTAL OF AGUAR;LI.F'. POSTS
05112192 11499 03/31192 RENTAL OF AGUAR:C.I.P. POSTS
868.15 0.00 868.15
2%65 0,00 2%65
55.88 0.00 55,88
00010342 06105/92 COLBURN
060192
3ti CDLBURN
06101192
Check lotals:
06/01/92 DAY CARP DISCOUNT REFUND
85.5! 0.00 83.51
40.00 0.00 40.00
Check Totals: 40.00 0.00 40.00
06105/?2
Fiscal Year: 1992
Check Date Vendor Name
InYoice Date P/O
00010343 06/05/92 COLOROPT COLOR OPTIC
6160010001 05/20192 11584
Si~y o~ iemec~la
Check Register
Date hscriptiDn
Sross
Discount
05/08/92 POCKET DISPLAY; ~LDS,& SAFETY
181.49
0.00
Check Totals:
00010344 06/05192 COPYLINECOPY LINE CORPORATION
90198 05119192 11625 04101192 SERVICE CALLS; COPIERS
90197 05119192 11625 MI01192 SERVICE CALLS; COPIERS
181.49
118.78
136.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ch~ck Totals:
O0010345 06105192 COUNTYCO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE-CLERK OF
052992 e5129192 05129/92 OPT GAE FISH ENV. IMPACT FEE
254.78
1,275.00
0.00
0.00
00010346 06/05192 COURTNEY ELINDA C~RTNEY
060192 06101192
Check Totals:
06101t92 REFUND/DAY CAMP
1,275.00
805.00
0.00
0.00
00010347 06/05/92 DAVLIN DAVLIN
89-25:183 05/27192 11297
Check Totals:
05/31192 AUDIO TAPE;TRAFFIC CD~H.MTGS.
805.00
127.92
0.00
0.00
00010349 06105/92 FLOWER FLONER CORRAL
042892 04/28192
Check Totals:
04/28/92 FLUNERS
127.92
37,17
0.00
0.00
Check Totals:
00010549 06105/92 GILLIS-I C. H. 'MAX" GILLIS
030192 04101192 0574 02/01192 ANEND,COt 0266; ~RCH 92
040192 04/31/92 0374 02101192 REND.CO! 0266; APRIL 92
37.17
2,150.00
1,300.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
00010550 06/05/92 HAFELITH THORAS HAFELI
052892 05/28/92
Check Totals:
05/29/92 HILEAGE REINS
5,450.00
118.44
0.00
0.00
00010351 06105192 HANKSWAR HANKS HARDMARE
053192 05/31/92 11606
043092 04/30/92
00010552 06/05192 HOWARD BOBBY HOWARD
060192 06/01/92
Check Totals:
04/01/92 OPEN ACCOUNT;M!SC.CITV ACCOUN
04/30/92 NISC SUPPLIES
Check Totals:
06/01/92 80~ BASIC HORSEMANSHIP
118.44
129.29
28.16
157.45
240.00
0.00
· 0.00
O.O0
O.OO
O.OO
00010553 06105192 ICMARETI ICNA RETIREMENT
2DFCm.77 05~07~92
2DFCM.78 05/21/92
060492 06104192
060492-1 06/04/92
Check Totals:
05107/92 Normal P/R, 5107192
05/21/92 Normal P/R, 5121192
06104192 RETIREMENT DEPOSIT FOR NAY 92
06/04/92 RETIREMENT DEPOSIT FOR mAY 92
240,00
490.57
575.77
10,557.72
55.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
00010554 06105192 JENNACO JENNACO
2417 04/27192 0404
2420 06105/92 0341
2420-1 05110192 040q
Check Totals:
04101192 ~ANITDRIAL SERV!CES/SAR/APRIL
02/10/92 3UNE CHGS
04101/92 mY CH6S
11,457,06
480.00
1,215.58
400.00
0.00
0.00
00010555 06/05/92 LOS HALC LOS HALCONES
Check Totals:
2,093.38
O.OO
Net
IS.
181.49
118.78
136.00
234.78:
1,275.00:
1,275.00!
805.00
B05.00
127.92
127.92.
37.17
37.17
2,150 ~
1,300.w'
5,450.00
118.44
118.44
129.29
28.16
157.45
240.00
240.00
490.57
575.77
10J37.72
53.00:
11,457.06
480.00'
400.~0
2,093.3B
Fiscal Yearl 19~2 Check Register
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
052992 05129192 05129192 DEPOSIT ~ARIACHI BAND-9/16 100.00 0.00 lO0.eO
Check Totals: 100.00 0.00 lOe. O0
00010356 06105!92 NARILYNS ~ARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
2155 06/01/92 11513 04/17192 COFFEE SERVICEICITY HALL 50.70 0.00 50.70
Check Totals: 50.70 0.00 5C.70
00010557 06105/r2 PALDRAR PALOHAR POMERADO HOHE CARE
052892 06104192 06104192 BUS. LIC. RE6ISTRATION 55.00 0.00 35.00
Check Totals: ~5.00 0,00 55.00
00010358 06/05/92 PAYLESS PAYLESS DRU6 STORES
1505 05126192 110~1 10151191FILH PROCESSINGIB&SI24EXPOSUR 6.6~ 0.00 6.63
00010559 06105192 POSTRAST POSTRASTER
9244625 05101192
Check Totals: 6.63 0.00 6.63
05101/92 04104192-05101192 91.60 0.00 91.60
'ChKk Totals:
00010360 06/05192 PRECISIO PRECISION PHOTOGRAPHY, INC.
0522~2 05/22/92 05122192 REFUN~ ON DEPOSIT
91.60 0.00 91.60
7~500.00 0.00 7,500.00
00010561 06/05/92 PRESSENT PRESS ENTERPRISE
043092 04130192 11556
45092 04130/92 11317
0331~23 04101192 11517
Check Totals:
04/24/92 3QG RECRUIT ADSITCSD
02/19/92 OPEN ACCOUNT FOR &OB ADS
02/!9/92 30B ADS ~AR 92
7~500,00 0.00 7,500,00
650,46 0,00 650.46
228.I9 0.00 228,59
99.62 O,O0 99.52
Check Totals:
00010562 06105/~2 RAN-CAL RAN-CAL aANITORIAL SUPPLY
5161 05112192-tt563 04/2~/92 ~ISC, SUPPLIES/TCSD
5151 0'5/08/92 11565 04129t92 HISC. SUPPLIES/TCSD
5202 0'5/22/92 11SOB 05112192 RISC, SUPPLIES/TCSD
5183 05118192 1~565 04129/92 RISC, SUPPLIES/TCSD
5065 04/29/92 11563 04129192'~I5C, SUPPLIES/TCSD
978,47 0.00 978.47
8.57 0.00 8,57
71,08 0,00 71,08
59.26 0,00 59.26
22.&1 0.00 22.61
96.94 0,00 96,94
00010563 06105/92 RAN-TEC
007453
007467
RAN-TEC RUBBER STAHP RF6
05/14192 11535 04/09/92
05120/92 11589 05112192
Check Totals: 258,46 0,00 258.46
APPROVED STAHP;N/SISNATURE 43.10 0,00 45.10
NA~EPLATES;NA~EBADGES 14,55 0.00 14.55
00010364 06105R2 RANCHOBL RANCHO BLUEPRINT
41696 05/15/92 11426 05125/92
41429 05112/92 11426 03/25/92
41895 05/27192 11~00 02t!1192
~9606 04/01192 ~!300 02/11/92
40962 04102192 11619 04101192
Check Totals:
HAPPIN6 SUPPLIES &BLUPRINTS
MAPPIN6 SUPPLIES &BLUPRINTS
BLUEPRINTS; ENGINEERIN6 DEPT.
BLUEPRINTS; EN61NEERIN6 DEPT,
PLANNING DEPT;HAPS
57,65 0,00 57.65
10.80 0.00 10,60
25.47 0.00 25,47
10,09 0,00 10,09
65.94 0,00 65,94
32.53 0.00 52,53
00010365 06/05/72 RIGHTNAY RIGHTNAY
165445 05/04i~2 I1564
!6544~ 05104/92 1156~
165444 05/04R2 11564
0~/27!~2
04/27192
04~27~92
Check Totals:
PORTABLE IOILET SERY,~A%JUNE
PORTABLE TOILET SERV.HAY&JUNE
PORTABLE TOILET SERV.HAY&JUNE
144,63 0,00 14~,65
22%55 O,OO 229.55
114.78 O,O0 !!4.7B
57.5t _ 0,00 57.59
Check Totals:
00010366 06/05192 RIVERFIR RIVERSIDE COUHTY FIRE EEPART
401,72 0,00 401.72
Fiscal Year: 1992
Check Register
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice .Date P/O Date Description
052892 05/28192 05/28/92 FEES PD TO CITY TEN, SIR fib
Gross
Check Totals:
00010367 06/05/92 RIVERSID RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
108657-0 0~/19192 11609 04/24192 FOLDER LABELS;GLUE;CLiPS
8640-0 0$/19/92 11610 05113192 SHEET PROTECTORS;POST-ITS
Discount
547.00
547.00
74,73
176.47
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
Station:
Net
547.00
547,0u
74,75
176,47
00010368 06/05/92 SC SIGNS $C SI6NS
043092 04130192 0555
02101R2
Check Totals:
SIb'NS;PULIEARIN6 NTCIAPRIL
251.20
560,00
0,00
0,00
251,20
360,00
00010369 06105192 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
050492-1 051041r2 05104192
Check Totals:
4798020000010823141251[L
360.00
496.95
0.00
0.00
~60.00
496.95
00010370 06/05/92 SIRSPEED SIR SPEEDY
5194 05126192 10928 10102191
5192 05126192 10928 10102191
5193 05126192 10929 10102191
Check TOtals:
~US.CAPJ)S FOR NEW EHPLOYEES
BUS.CARDS FOR HEN EItPLOYEES
~US.CARDS FOR NEe EMPLOYEES
496.95
57.54
;58.79
115.09
O,OO
0.00
0,00
0.00
496.95
57,54
38,79
115.09
Check TOtals:
00010371 06105/92 SO CAL-2 SO,CALIFORNiA TELEPHONE CO,
3457421K 04109/92 04/08/92 7143457421/MARCH
2874641K 04101/92 04/01/92 71428748411FEB 14-18
2674941L 05107192 05/07192 7142874841L APRIL
3493437K 05/07/92 05/07/92 7143493437K/APRIL
2874994K 05/07192 05/07/92 7142874994 HAR-APRIL
7458550K 05107192 05/07192 7147458550K HAR-APR[L
211,41
112.07
50,40
0,75
59.99
50,79
174.14
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
211,41
112.07
50,40
0,75
59,o-.-
50,.
174.14
00010~72 06/05/92 SPEEDYOI SPEEDY OIL CHAN6E
0002257 015121t92 11268 02/04/92
0002098 05/15/92 11254 02/03192
0002298 05/22/92 11279 03/31/92
0002425 05/27192 !~279 03/~I/92
Check Totals:
REPAIR & HAINT.CITY VEHICLES
REPAIR & HAINT. VEHICLES; CSD
REPA]R& NAINT. VEHICLES;P.M.
REPAIR & HAINT. VEHICLES;P,M,
448.14
22,49
22.49
22,49
22,49
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
448.14
22,49
22.49
22,49
22.49
00010~73 06/05192 STRACHOT STRACHOTA INSURANCE
12813 713 05/04/92 04/16/92
Check Totals:
ACM2181BS02/INLAND NARINE
BV.V&
171.00
0,00
0.00
89.96
171,00
00010374 06105192 SUNRIDGE SONRIDGE CONHUNITY CHURCH
052892 05/28/92 05128192
Check Totals:
EFUND/NON-PROFIT ORS,
171.00
55.00
0.00
0.00
171.00
35,00
00010375 06/05/92 TEN PIPE TENECULA VALLEY PIPE
045092 04/50/92 11385 03102192
Check Totals:
OPEN ACCOUNT;HISC,ITENS;TCSD
35,00
589,28
0,00
0,00
55.00
389.28
00010576 06/05/92 TEM TROP TSECULA TROPHY
40589 05/07/92 11566 04/24/92
00010377 06/05/92 TENECULA TEHECULA CREEK INN
O000U7~ 05/27/92 05/27192
Check Totals:
WDHENS TOURN~MENT;AMARO8
Check Totals:
MEETING HAY 21
389.28
26.40
26.40
235,73
0.00
0.00
- 0.00
0.00
3B9.28
26.40
26.,v
235,73
Fiscal Year:
Check Register
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIO Date Description
Gross
Check Totals:
00010379 06105192 THDRSBOR ALICIA THORSBDRNE
060192 06101192 06101/92 MILEA6E REINBURSEENT
8.40
Check Totals:
00010379 06/05/92 UNITOG UNITO8 RENTAL SERYICE
8772570515 05115192 11180 12113/91UNIFDi~ RENIALISI15192
8772570529 05/29192 11180 12113191UIiIFOR~ RENTAL!5129192
8772570522 051221r2 11180 12113191UIITFORM EliTALl 5122192
8771570529 05129192 0365 02127192 UIIIFORM RatTALl5129192
6771570522 05/22192 07>65 02127192 U!ITFOR~ REIITAL!5122192
8.40
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
00010380 06~05~92 VOGTNANC NANCY VEST
051192 06104192
Check Totals:
06104/12 REII~URSE, SUPPLIES
62.50
30.00
00010381 06105192 NESTPUB
040292
Check Totals:
NEST PUBLISHING CONPANY
M!O21r2 04102192 APRIL PUBL/CATION8
30.00
142.58
Check Totals:
00010582 06105192 MINDSOR1NINDSOR PARTNERS-RANCHO IND
060192 06/01/92 06/01192 3UNE RENT
142.58
28,527.11
00010383 06105192 IEROX-2
533221585
Check Totals:
XEROX CORPORATION-BILLIN6
06/01/92 0349 02/01/92 LEASE FOR 3UNE
28~527.11
2,345.00
Check Totals:
00010385 06/23/92 AZTECTEC AZTEC TECH. CORP.
23209 04113192.11469 03/31/92 40' STDRA6E IllWIT
2,345.00
5,006.23
Check Totals:
00010386 06/23/92 CENTRALC CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SERVICE
4817 05111/92 11515 04/15/92 REBULAR/ADVANCED NRNG SIGNS
5018 05127192 11513 04/15/92 REGULAR/ADVANCED ~RNG SIGNS
3,006,23
15,115.54
87.03
Check Totals:
00010387 06/23f92 DEPHEALT IIDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
APRIL 92 04130192 0199 10/01/91 ANIMAL CONTROL/APRIL 92
15,200.57
5,164.81
00010388 06/23/r2 SREEKHAR GREEK, HAROLD F.
053092 05/30192 0382
Check Totals:
04106192 REVIEN LANDSCAPE PLANS
5/92
5,164.81
1,452.50
Check Totals:
00010389 06125192 JFDAVIDS J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES,INC.
34353 04123/92 0370 03105192 TRAFFIC STUDY MAR 92
34468 04/01!12 0381 03/13/92 PROFF. SERV ~AR 30-APR 26
343~0 04/23/92 0576 02/01/92 PROFESSIONAL SERV. MAR Y2
1,452.50
4,576.00
4,512.50
200.00
00010590 06/23/~2 ~ B S
RM205B
N B S / LOWRY
05112f92 0397
Check Totals:
05/12t92 CO!GTR.MGfr.PN 9144
Check Totals:
00010594 06/231~2 OCBREPRO OCB REPROGRAPHICS, INC.
9~088.50
7,987.50
7,987.50
Discount
S~atio=:
Net
0.00 235.75
0.00 8.40
0.00 8.40
0.00 12.50
0.00 12.50
0.00 12.50
0.00 12.50
0.00 12.50
0.00 62.50
0.00 30.00
0,00 30,00
0.00 142.58
0.00 142.58
0.00 28,527.11
0.00 28,527.11
0.00 2,;545,00
0.00 2,345.00
0.00 5,006.23
0.00 3,006.23
0~00 15,113.54
0.00 87.03
O.O0 15~200,57
0,00 5,164.81
0.00 5,164.81
0.00 1,452.50
0.00 1,452.50
0.00 4,576.00
0.00 4,312.50
0.00 200.00
O,OG 9.088.50
0.00 7,987.50
0.00 7,987.50
06/05192
Fiscal Year: 1992
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIO
$90242 05118192 11586
377777 05105/92 11586
377265 05/05192 11586
$45454 05/05/92 11586
375729 05105192 11586
05499 05105/92 1158&
$75500 05105/92 11586
$75503 05105192 11586
378756 05105R2 11586
3787~ 05105192 11586
$78099 05105192 11586
$78453 05105192 1158&
378431 05105192 11586
$78566 05105192 1158&
379502 05105/92 11586
379802 05105192 11586
$79442 05/05192 11586
379446 05105192 11586
~79441 05/05/92 11586
378035 05/05R2 11566
$81405 05/05/92 11586
381109 05105/92 11586
381230 05/05192 11586
382746 05/06/92 11586
$82748 05/06/92 11586
$86410 05/12/92 11586
387508 05115/92 11586
$87289 05/15/92 11586
$87407 05/13192 11586
387915 05/15/92 li~86
387603 05/13/92 11586
$86791 0$/12192 11586
386359 05/12/92 11586
384835 03/08/92 11586
384579 05/08/92 11586
384249 05108192 11586
$84299 03/08/92 11586
584682 05/08/92 11586
386127 05/11/92 11596
385342 05111192 11586
$85387 05/11/92 11586
$85348 05/11192 11586
365748 05105/~2 11586
365812 05/05/92 11586
$66239 05105192 11586
373836 05/05192 11586
374126 05/05/92 11586
5738S3 05/05/92 11586
373127 05/05/92 11586
373i25 05/05/92 11386
395772 05122192 11586
590913 05119/92 11586
392882 05/21/92 11586
393186 0~i21/92 11586
395350 0~/21/92 11586
375502 04/24/92 11586
City of Jemecula
Check Register
Date Description
05105192 PRINTIN6 CDSTS;CO~.CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN.CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;COR~,CENTER
· 05105/92 PRINTING COSTS!CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTIN6 COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CONR.CENTER
05105192 PRINTING CD~TG;CONLCENTER
05105192 PRINTIIIG COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING CO~TS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN.CENTER
05105192 PRINTING C~T8;CORN, CENTER
05105/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105R2 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COST8;CO~H,CENTER
05105/82 PRINTING COSTS;CONN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN.CENTE~
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105R2 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CONR,CENTER
05105/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105/92 PRINTIN6 COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTIN6 COSTS;CORN.CENTER
05/05R2 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
03105/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CONH,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS~CORN,CENTER
05/05192 PRINTING COST5~CORN,CENTER
05105192 PRINTING COSTS;CO~.CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CORN.CENTER
05/05/92 PRINTING COSTS;CDI~,CENTER
05105R2 PRINTING COSTS;CORN,CENTER
6ross
Discount
20.69
34
59,91
20
19.50
25.19
10,78
21.12
55.41
25.70
23,38
8,24
16,49
16,24
32,27
22,90
24.35
27.75
15.62
46,01
37.12
27,91
14,06
12
20.36
14.01
15.62
75.96
6.34
4.22
9.70
3.23
50.70
19,50
23.38
13.58
14.01
20.69
17.62
17.24
20.47
15.62
23.60
15,62
85,03
72.19
61,85
66.64
24,05
15.79
29.36
29,36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
O.OO
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.O0
O.OO
0,00
0.00
O.O0
0.00
0.00
0.00
O,O0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
O,OO '
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.O0
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Net
20.6r---~
34.91
5~.~:
20,56
19.50
25,19
10,78
21,12
53.41
25.70
23.38
33.94
8.24
16.49
16.24
32.27
22.90
24.35
27,75
15.62
46,01
37.12
27.91
14.06
12,93_~.
20.3(
14.01
15,62
75.96
4.22
9.70
3.23
50,70
19.50
23.38
13.58
14.01
3,23
20.69
1%62
17.24
20.47
15.62
25.60
15.62
85,03
72,19
6!.85
66.64
34,9~--,~,
24.C
15.79
29.36
29.56
Fiscal Year: 1992
Chec~ kegister
Check Date Vendor Name
lnvoice Date P/O Date
Description
00010395 0&123/92 OLIVERBR OLIVER BROTHERS
13~ 05/20/92 0398
05/12/92
Check Totals:
CONSTRUCTION;I-15 IIDENIN6
00010396 06125192 RAETE[ ;RIITE[
4043 04/50192 0361 02124192
4029 04130/92 0571 05151/92
4057 05115192 0402 05115/92
Check Totals:
CATCH BASIN & CHANNEL CLERll
STREET ~llrr.llOR[ ORDERS ONLY
EHERG.STR.REPAIR;VIA IIEVILLA
Check Totals:
00010397 06123192 ROBERTliE ROIlERT BEIN, ME, FROST & ASSO
24026 MI2BIr2 0392 MI281r2 DESION;INTRIE ERHARITA RD.
2-4005 051221r2 0579 04101192 REVISION RANG!tO CRL.RD DIST.
2-4025 05/22/92 0392 04128192 D~SIGNIINTRIE ~R~ITA RD,
2-2005 04108192 0585 04/0~192 REINOURSEAIILES|STREET/SlFJILK
00010598 06123192 MILLDAN MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
4004252 04117192
4004275-4 04101192 0395
4004256-4 04/01/92 0595
4004256-1 04/01/92 0548
4004273-1 05/25R2 0348
4004273-3 04/50192 0589
04101192
04101192
04/01/92
01/28/92
01/2B/92
04/07/92
Check Totals:
I
ills MARCH CHSS
EARGARITA RD.EXTN. APRIL 92
RARGARITA RD.EXTN. KARCN 92
PREPARE REPORTS;LEGAL DESCRIP
PREPARE REPORTSILE6AL DESCR]P
REVZEN PLAN;SLOPE RNT. APRIL
00010399 06/05/92 CSDA CSDA
052792 05127192
05/27192
Check Totals:
REO, 6HANT-VOR[SHOP ON SiT 196
Check TotaZs:
Report Totals:
6ross
1,479.87
104,216.94
104,216.94
1,837.77
7,059.44
6,99Z,.ii0
15,il91.01
20,000.00
2,200.00
7,099.5~
185.66
29,485.19
316.00
12,478.00
11,394.50
1,020.00
439.00
1,571.00
27,218.50
Discount
Station:
Net
0.00 1,479.87
0.00 104,215.94
0,00 104,216.94
0.00 1,~37.77
0.00 7,059.44
0.00 6,99;.80
0.00 15,il91.01
0.00 20,000.00
0.00 2,200.00
0.00 7,099.55
0.00 185.66
0.00 29,4il5.19
0.00 316,00
0.00 12,478.00
0.00 11,394.50
0.00 i~020.00
0.00 439,00
0.00 1,571.00
0.00 27,218.50
125.00 0.00 125.00
125,00 0.00 125.00
290,205.77
0.00 290,205.77
Report Nriter CHEC~ LISTING BY FUND
FUND CHECK HUNGER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTIOn' A~OUq'
001 00010332 04/05/92
001 0001033& 06/05/42 APPLE ONE
001 00010338 06/05192 BENEFIT AERZCA
001 00010340 0&105/92 CALiFORNiAN
001 00010340 06/05192 CALIFORNIAN
001 00010340 04/05192 CALIFORNIAN
001 00010340 0&105192 CALIFORNIAN
001 00010340 o&los/r2 CALIFORNINI
001 00010341 04/051f2 CAL NEST RENTAL CENTER
001 00010343 04/051f2 COLOR OPTIC
001 00010344 06105192 COPY LiNE CORPORATIOR
001 00010347 06/05192 DAVL]N
001 00010348 0&/05192 FLDMER CORRAL
001 00010349 04/05192 C, H, 'ltX' 61~LIS
001 00010344 06/05192 C, N. '~X' G[LL[S
001 00010350 04/05t92 THONAS HAFELI
001 00010351 06105t92 HANKS HARDMARE
001 00010351 06/05/92 HANKS HARDMARE
001 00010355 06105192 ICHA RETIRERENT
001 00010353 06105192 IC~ RET]REHENT
001 00010353 0&/05/92 ZCHA RETIREMENT
001 00010353 04/05R2 ICNA RETiREENT
001 00010353 06/051t2 ICHA RETIREENT
001 00010354 06105/92 OENNACO
001 0001035& 0~/05/92 MARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
001 00010357 0~105192 PALONAR PONERADO HONE CARE
001 00010358 06/05R2 PAYLESS DRUG STORES
001 0001035~ 06105/92 POSTHASTER
001 00010~60 0&/05/92 PRECISION PHOTORRAPHY~ INC,
001 00010361 06105192 PRESS ENTERPRISE
001 00010361 0&/05/92 PRESS ENTERPRISE
001 OOO10361 06105/92 PRESS ENTERPRISE
001 00010342 0&/05/92 RAN-CAL OANITORIAL SUPPLY
001 00010363 06/05/92 RAN-TEC RUBBER STANP
001 00010343 0&/05/92 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF6
001 00010364 0&/05t92 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
001 00010544 0&/05/92 RANCHO GLUEPRiNT
001 OOO1036& 04/05I'92 R]VERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPART
001 00010367 0&/05/'92 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
001 00010367 0&!05/92 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
001 00010348 06/05192 SC SIGNS
001 00010570 06/05!92 SIR SPEEDY
001 00010371 06/05/92 SO,CALiFORNIA TELEPHONE CO,
001 00010371 06105192 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO,
00! 00010571 06/05/92 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO,
001 00010371 06/05/92 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO,
001 00010572 04/05192 SPEEDY OiL CHANGE
001 00010372 06/05192 SPEEDY OIL CHANGE
001 00010572 0~/05192 SPEEDY OIL CHANGE
OOZ 00010375 0~/05192 STRACHOTA INSURANCE
001 00010374 0&t05192 SUNRIDGE COHHUNITY CHURCH
001 00010377 04105f92 TEMECULA CREEK INN
001 0001037~ 06/05/92 AL!CI~ THORSBORNE
001 00010379 06/05192 UNITO6 RENTAL SERVICE
001 00010379 06105/92 UNIT06 RENTAL SERVICE
00! 00010381 06105192 NEST PUBLISHING COMPANY
001 00010382 04105R2 NINDSOR PARTNERS-RANCHO ZND
001 00010383 0&/05/92 XEROX CORPORATiON-BILLING
HEARIN6 ARB!TRATXON/ADM FEES
TEHP.SERV, NE 5/16/92
ADVERTISING15101192
LEGAL NOTICES; PLANNING DEPT,
LEGAL NOTICESI CiTY CLERK
LEGAL NOTICES~ PLANNING DEPT, 27,~
ADVERTISIND/2123/92 195.6:
RENTAL OF AGUAR~C.X,P, POSTS
POCKET DISPLAY~ BLDG.& SAFETY
SERVICE CALLS; COPIERS 254,7~
AU1)]O TAPE;TRAFFIC CONH.MTGS. ~27.~
FLOMERS 37.1
ANEND.CO! 02661 APRIL 92 1,$00.0
AllEND.COl 02661HARCH 92 2~&50.0
HILEABE REIND ~18.4
OPEN ACCOUNT~MISC.CITY ACCOUN [27.2
HZSC SUPPL/EG 28.1
RETIREENT DEPOSIT FOR MAY 92 4,57L1
Normal PIR~ 5107192
RETIREMENT DEPOSIT FOR MAY 92
Normal P/R~ 5121192 42:,1
RETIRERENT DEPOSIT FOR HAY 92 1,14~.S
aUNE CHSS I~212.~
COFFEE SERVZCE~CZTY HALL 59.1
BUS. LIC. REGISTRATION 35.(
FILM PROCESSING;B&S;24EXPOSUR 6.~
04104/92-05/01/92
REFUND ON DEPOSIT 111622
aoR RECRUM ADS~TCSD
OPEN ACCOUNT FOR 30~ ADS 228.:
JOB ADS HAR 92
MISC. SUPPLIEGITCSD
APPROVED STAHP;NISIGNATURE
NAHEPLATES;NAHEBADGES
BLUEPRINTGI ENGINEERING DEP1. 74.~
PLANNING DEPT;HAPS
FEES PD TO CITY TEH; S/B RFD 547,
SHEETPROTECTORS~POET-ITS 176,
FOLDER LABELSIGLUE;CLIPS 7~,
SZGNS~PUB,HEAR[N6 NTC/APR[L 360,
BUS,CARDS FOR NEN EMPLOYEES 211,
714345772~/HARCH ~12,
7142974841L APRIL O,
71428749~1/FEG 14-16 50,
7143493437K/APRIL 5~,
REPAIR & HAINT, VEHICLES~P,N, 22,
REPA1R & HA]NT,CTTY VEHICLES
REPAIR & HAINT. VEHTCLES;P.N.
ACH21818302/iNLAND HARINE 17:
REFUND/NON-PROFIT ORS.
MEETING KAY 21
H~LEAGE REZNBURSEMENT
UNIFOR~ REHTALIG/29/92 -'*'~,
UNIFORN RENTAL/5/22/92 I~,
APRIL PUSLICAT~DHS
3UNE RENT 28,527.
LEASE FOR OUNE
Report Writer CHECK LISTING ~Y FUND
FUND CHEC[ NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
001 00010385 06/23/92 AZTEC TECH. CORP. 40' STORAGE UNIT
001 OOOlO38& 06/23192 CENTRAL CITIES SI6N SERVICE REGULAR/ADVANCED WANG SIGNS 15,20C.57
001 00010387 06/23192 IIDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANIMAL CONTROL/APRIL 92 5,164.6!
001 00010589 06123192 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES,INC. TRAFFIC STUDY N~ 92 4,57&,0C
001 00010389 06/23/92 a,F. DAVIDSON ASSOCiATES,INC. PROFESSIONAL SERV. MAR 92 20e.OC
001 00010396 06/23/92 RAMTEN STREET MAIN~.NORK ORDERS ONLY 7,05t.44
001 00010396 06123192 RANTEN EHERG.STR.REPAIRIVIA SEVILLA 6,99LB0
001 00010396 061231t2 RAMTEN CATCH BASIN & CHANNEL CLEAN 1,83L77
001 00010598 06123192i MILLDAN ASSOCIATES B&S MARCH CNGG 31L00
001 00010599 06105192 CSDA MEG. GRANT-NOR[SHOP ON SB 198 12L00
001
011 00010389 06/23192
011 00010390 06/23192
011 00010395 06/23192
011 00010397 06123192
104,{~11.99
011
016 00010369 06105192
J,F, ~AVI~SON {LSSDCIATES,INC.
N B S I LOMRY
OLIVER BROTHERS
ROBERT BEIN~ MR, FROST & ASSO
PROFF. SERV MAR 30-APR 26
CONSTR,NGMT,PM 91-04
CONSTRUCTION;I-IS RIDEWIN6
REViSiON RANCHO CAL.RD DIST.
104,21t,94
2:2~,00
118,7~.94
019 00010137 05114192
019 00010246 05127192
019 00010333 06104192
019 00010~35 06105192
019 00010~37 06~05~92
"" 019 00010338 06105192
019 00010559 06/05/92
019 00010540 06105/92
019 00010342 06/05/92
019 00010546 06/05/92
019 00010352 06/05/92
019 00010355 06/05/92
019 00010353 06/05192
019 00010553 06/05/92
019 00010354 06/05/92
019 00010354 06105192
019 00010355 06/05/92
019 00010359 06/05/92
019 00010362 06/05/92
019 00010564 06/05/92
019 00010365 06/05/92
019 00010571 06105192
019 00010371 06105/92
019 00010372 06/05/92
019 00010375 06/05/92
019 00010376 06/05/92
019 00010379 06/05/92
019 00010~79 06/05/92
0!? 0001037~ 0&/05/92
019 00010580 06/05/92
01~ O00105SS 061231~2
"' Olq 0001059e 06/23/92
019 00010398 06123R2
019 0001059~ 06/25/92
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
479802000001082314125IKL
4ml .95
CALIFORNIA ETHNIC MINORITY
POSTMASTER
POSTMASTER
AEI SECURITY INC.
BARGAIN BULLETIN
BENEFll AMERICA
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
CALIFORNIAN
~AN COLDURN
MEL]NDA COURTNEY
BOBBY NOMAR~
IC~ RET]REENT
ICMA RETIREMENT
ICMA RETIREMENT
JENNACO
JEN~CO
LOS HALCONES
POSTMASTER
RAN-CAL OANITORIAL SUPPLY
RANCHO BLUEPRINT
RIGHTNAY
SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO,
SPEEDY OIL CHAN6E
TEMECULA VALLEY PiPE
TEMECULA TROPHY
UNIT06 RENTAL SERVICE
UNIT06 RENTAL SERVICE
UN!TOS RENTAL SERVICE
NANCY VOGT
6REE~, H~ROLD F.
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
NILLOAN ~SOCIATES
MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
MORKSHOPIS/221921HP~SN ~.00
ASSESNEWT REFUND CNKS 4~1.80
ASSMNT RFND BULK NA!LIN6 3~.BO
JUNE SECURITY/TEEN CENTER 15.00
TEEN CENTER ADVERTISEMENT 1~.00
5/26/92 RIEMB EL/DENTAL PLN 5~'/.82
EXTRA MORN ORDERS;SLOPESjTC 4~0.60
ADS FOR EASTER EGG HUNT;TCSD 317,76
DAY CAMP DISCOUNT REFUND 40,O0
REFUND/DAY CAMP 805,00
80l BASIC HORSEMANSHIP 240.00
Normal P/R, 5/07/92 42,58
RETIREMENT DEPOS[T FOR MAY 92 2JT6.25
Normal P/R, 5121192 142,58
JANITORIAL SERVICES/MAR/APRIL 450.00
MAY CHBS 4~0.00
DEPOSIT NARIACHZ BAND-t/16 100.00
04104192-05101192 $3,85
MISC. SUPPLIES/TCSD 199.20
MAPPINS SUPPLIES &BLUPRINTS $6.27
PORTABLE TOILET SERV.MAY&JUNE 41~.72
7147458550K ~R-APRIL 174.14
7142874994 NAN-APRIL t0.79
REPAIR & ~INI. VEHICLES; CSD 22.49
OPEN ACCOONT;NISC.ITEMS;TCSD 3~9.28
NONEMS TOURNAENI;AMARDS 26,40
UNIFORM RENTAL/5/22/92 i2,5o
UNIFORM RENTAL/5/15/92 12.50
UNIFORM RENTALISI29192 12.50
REIMBURSE, SUPPLIES
REVIEW LANDSCAPE PLANS 5t92 1.452.5C
PREPARE REPORTS{LEGAL DESCRIP I,O2O.OC
REVIEW PLAN;SLOPE NNT. APRIL 1~5~1.00
PREPARE REPORTS{LEGAL DESCRIP 4~9.0C
12~440.3;
Report Writer CHECK LiSTINB 8Y FUND . S~ation:~5~
FUND CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NA~E DESCRIPTID~ AMOUNT
021 00010~97 O&/2~/t2 ROBERT BE]N: NH, FROST & ASSD DESIGN~]NTR]M MARARiTA
021 000103t7 O&12]/t2 ROBERT BEIN~ MR, FROST & ASSO REINBURSEABLES;STREET/S[DEMLK
021 00010~98 O&i25R2 MILLDAN ASSDCZATES RARGARXTA RD,EXTN, APRZL t2 1, ~,06
02~ 00010~t8 O&/2S/t2 NZLLDAN ASSOCIATES NAR6ARZTA RD,EXTN, HARCH t2
021 51,15~,6~
02t 00010545 0&105/92
029 00010394 05/2]!t2
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE-CLERK OF
OCB REPROBRAPHICS~ INC,
OPT GAME FISH ENV, IHPACT FEE
PRINTING COSTSICORR,CENTER
1~479,B7
029 2~75~,87
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description ~r~ss :iscc~nt
00010400 06105192 DAYLIB DAVLIK
E9-21:180 05t12/92 11651
89-25:182 05126192 11651
05/01R2 MAY 12 COUNCIL MEETINS
05101/92 MAY 26 COUNCIL MEETING
Check Totals:
00010401 06/09/92 RIVERHAS RIV, CO, HABITAT CONSERVATION
0408~2 04/08192 06/08/92 PAYMENT FOR K-RAT/~AY 92
00010402 06/08/92 PERS
060992
Check Totals:
PERS (HEALTH INCUR. ~MIUN)
06/08/92 04108/92 INSURANCE PREMI~ ~UE 92
00010403 06109R2 POSTMAST POSTMASTER
060592 06/05/92
Check Totals:
06105192 BULK MAIL BROCHURE(TCBD)
Check Totals:
00010405 04t12/92 AMERI~BU AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS
504958 06/05/92 11581 0511~192 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
00010406 06/12/92 APOLLO
060492
Check Totals:
APOLLO S~EEPIN8 COMPANY
06104/92 06/04/92 EMERSENCY SWEEP 612
00010407 04t12/92 APPLEONE APPLE ONE
1457630 05127/92 11541
Check Totals:
04122/92 TEMP.SERV. W/E 5IS;FINANCE
00010408 06/12R2 ARTESIA
12656
030192
Check Totals:
ARTESIA IMPLEMENT
04/20/92--- 04/20192 ADOUST HAND BRAKE/50EX-4
06/01/92 06101/92 SERVICE CHARGE
00010409 06/12192 AT&T A T & T
0696054001 05125/V2
Check Totals:
05125/92 7520496034001 4/28-5/25
Check Totals:
000104~0 06/12/92 AUTOHOTI AUTOHOTIVE SPECIALISTS
24166 06/01/92 11559 04/2~/92 SERV.tT.TOWER}TRAILER HITCH
Check Totals:
00010411 06/!2/92 BARB'S B BARB'S BALLOON!N8 AF;AIR
060992 06/09/92 06/09/92 DECORATION FRONT COVER PROS.
Check Totals:
00010412 06/!2/92 BOSTONSU BOSTON SUPERMARKET & BAKERY
1447 05/20/92 11~84 04102/92 CHROME PLTD SHLVS;CONCESSION
Cnec~ Totals:
000!0~i: 06/12/~2 CALIA!dGL CALIFORNIA ANGELS
0604?2 f'~ ..... 0~/04,'92 ~-~nc,- ~OR 8'~E
00010414 06/!2/92 CALiFORN CALIFORNIAN
0017B 04130192 10958
~,~,~ 04128/92 10941
Check Totals:
I0i02/9i 'cSA' NGT~C:S· 4:~ PLN DEPT,
~ b ,~ ~ ! ,~.
I0t02/9~ LEGAL NOTICES} ;iTV CLINK
600.00 0.00 400.0~
600.00 0.00 600.0(.
1,200.00 0.00 I+20C.CO
2,534.15 0.00 2J54.I~
2,554.15 O.O0 2,354.15
19,45~.08 0.00 19,439.08
19,459.08 0.00 19,459.08
1,481.15 0.00 ' 4~ 1~
1,481.15 0.00 1,481.15
410.90 O.OO 410.90
610.90 0.00 610.90
195.00 0.00 !95.00
195.00 0.00 195.00
598.80 0.00 598.80
598.80 0.00 598.80
S.46 0.00 25.46
~ 0.00 7.B2
~1.28 0.00 51.28
118.46 0.00 1!8.46
118.46 0.00 !18.4~
474.57 0.00 474.57
474.57 0.00 474.57
4~.10 0,00 4~.10
45.10 0.00 45.10
250.11 0.00 230.11
2~.0~ O.O0 ~4~ OO
240,00 0.00 24G.00
29.45 0.00 29.4~
10.84 0,00 IG.94
Check Dat~ VenDor Name
Invoice Date P/O Oate ~escription Gross Discount
01465 05105/92 i0941 10102191 LEGAL NOTICES; CITY CLIRE ~4.07 0.00 3~.0~
011~4/74~9 0~/01/92 10941 10102R1 LEGAL NOTICES; CTY CLERK 5/29 84.41 0.00 8
01121 0&/01/92 10941 10102191 LEGAL NOTICES; CTY CLERK 5/29 29.43 LOG
Check Totals: 18L18
00010415 06112192 CITYOFLI CITY OF LIVERNDRE
052792 05/27/92 05/27R2 CAPT. INPR PRO6, FT 90-91492 5.00
0,00 !8L18
0.00 5.0(
Check Totalst
00010416 0&/12192 COUNCILD COUNCIL OF CALIF0RNIA
060992 06/09/92 06109R2 SHIP/HAN%)-C~ 3ORG I F~UitE
Check Totals:
00010417 06/12192 DEPTOFTR DEPARTNENT OF TRANSPORTATION
121953 05122192 05/22/r2 APRIL ~2
5.00 0.00 5.0(
5.00 0,00 5.0~
5,00 0.00 5.00
48.~ 0,00
00010418 0&/12/92 ERICKTIN TINA ERICKSON
052892 05128192
Check Totats:
05/28/92 CPRIFIRST AID CERTIFICATION
48.36
450,00
0.00 4S.I~
0,00 450.00
Check Totals:
00010419 0&I12R2 EUROHL! EUR0-DELI HOME CATERING
0~0492 05/04t92 0&I04/92 LUNCH FOR STAFF ~ETING
450.00 0.00 450,00
$0,00 0,00 30,00
00010420 06/12192 FAHEYJOH JOHN FAHEY
050192 06/01192
Check Totals:
06/01/92 REFUND/DAY CAMP
Check Totals:
00010421 06112/92 FARALLON FARALLON COHPUTIN6~ INC
&185 04107/924~505 04101/92 ANNUAL SUPPORT CHARGES
30.00 0,00 ~O.OO
20,00 0.00 20,oak
20.00 0,00 20,00
750.00 0.00 750,0~
00010422 06/12/92 FLAGHOUS FLAG HOUSE
0405852004 05/2~192 11577
~0!~00862 05/20!92 11577
Check Totals:
05/04/92 FIRST-AID;WHISTLE~TCGD
05/04/92 FIRST-AID;~ISTLE;TCSD
750.00 0,00 750.00
855.29 0,00 855.2?
75.08 0.00 75,08
Check Totals:
00010423 0&/12/72 GLENHIES GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
117~32-0 06/0A/92 i1~42 03/03/92 OPEN P.O. FOR MISS. ITEMS
910.37 0,00 910.;7
3,64 0,00 3.64!
00010424 06112192 STEBILL BTE
5990128 05/25192
~941989 05/28/92
6992309 05/28!92
595~539 ~ 05!28/92
Check Totals:
05125192 6990!28/5/22-6121
05/28/92 &94!989/4124-5122
05/28/92 6~2~09/4123-5/15
05/28/92 714695553t! 4/30-6124
,1,64 0,00 3.64;
724.25 0.00 724.25,
1,985.78 0.00 1,983.78i
25.84 0.00 25.84;
24.27 0.00 24,27'
00010425 06/12/92 H&HCRAFT H & H CRAFT
Check Totals:
06i08/92 CRAFT SUPPLIES/DAY CAMP
2J%.14
200.00
0.00 2~755.14
0.00 200.00
00010426 06/12192 HANKSHAR HANKS HARDWARE
15718 04/01/92 !1451
160224 05131/92 11627
061~2 05/~1V92
Check Totals:
05/24192 ELONGATED EHITE TO!LET;SPT.P[
05/19192 TOILET FIXTURE;SEAT;SPT,PRK,
03/02/92 OPEN ACCOUNTIHISC, PARTS=TCSD
200.00
O.O0 200~'~
95.90 0,00 95.90!
151.93 0,00 !51.93~
145.70 0,00 145,70
CnecL Dat~ Veneer Name '-
invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount
Check Totals:
00010427 0&I12192 HOWENELD HOE WELDING & FABRICATION
!12791 05/27R2 1!562 04/27/92 FAD.& INSTL S[YLT;CONCESSION
Check Totals:
00010428 06/12R2 INLANDCA INLAND CALL ANERICA
71694454BK 05/171t2 05117/t2 6944~48/4/18-5/!7
Check Totals:
00010429 06/12192 ~ENNACO 3ENNACO
2426 04/10R2 0341 02/10/92 ~ANITDRIAL SERV. 4/1-4/15
387.25 0.00 ~37.25
$87.25 0.00 587.2~
2,410.~8 0.00 2~410.38
2,410.$8 0.00 2,410.58
204.00 0.00 204.00
00010430 06112192 L&MFERTI L & H FERTiLiZER
61981 05108R2 11493
62388 05/22R2 11493
62500 05/20/92 11493
Check Totals:
04/09192 OPEN ACCOUNT;~ISC,TOOLS
04/09/92 OPEN ACCOUNT;NISC.TOOLS
04/09R2 OPEN ACCOU~Ti~!SLTOOLS
204.00 0,00 204,00
64.22 0.00 64.2~
17,09 0.00 17.0~
57.54 0.00 57.54
Check Totals:
00010431 0&/12/~2 LAIDLANT LAiDLAN TRANSITe INC,
060892 06/08/~2 06108/92 TRANS.-LAE GREGORY/DAY CA~P
138,85 0.00 I38,85
552,12 0,00 ;52.12
Check Totals:
00010452 G&/12R2 LOgALSOV LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
C609~2 06109R2 06/09192 ~2 SUPPLEKENT-LONST!N CA LAND
352.12 0.00 352,12
76,55 0.00 76.55
00010435 06112t92 LUCKYRAR LUCKY NARKET
060892 06106/92
Check Totals:
06108/92 SNACK FOR DAY CANP
7~.53 0.00 76.5~
100.00 0.00 100.00
Check Totals:
00010434 0&/12I~2 LUNCH&ST LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
060492 06104R2 06/04/92 COUNCILHE~BER/STAF~ ~INNER
100.00 0,00 100.00
B0,0O 0,00 B0,0O
Check Totals:
00010435 0a112192 MARGARIT ~ARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSOC.
015~ 05/12/92 0362 02/12/92 U~PIRES 5/9R2
0157 05105!92 0362 02!12192 URPIRES APRIL 92
01~2 05/5!R2 0362 02112R2 UHPIRES ~AY 92 CHGS
Check Totals:
00010456 06/12!92 MARILYNS NARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
216! 06/0B/92 11647 05/01/92 COFFEE SERVICE
80.00 0.00 80,00
198.00 O.OO 198,00
1~276.00 O.O0 I~276.00
1,364.00 0.00 1,364.00
2,B3B.O0 0.00
47,60 0.00 47.1)
00010437 0&/12/92 MARTIN
Check Totals:
HARTIN & CHAPNAN CO.
0412B192 04/2BIV2 RESOLUTIONGtEVENTS/ELEC HANUA
47.60 0,00 47,~
41,20 0,00 41.20
00010438 06/12/92 MOSS EDWARD HOGS
060172 06/0!/92
Check Totals:
06/01/~2 REFUND/DAY CAEP
41.20 0.00 e, ,r
S0,O0 O,C0 ~C.00
00010459 06t!2/92 NELSONH. I ~ICHAEL NELSON
060172 06101/92
Check T~tais:
0&/01!92 REFUN~ SUMHER DAY
IO.OC 0.0C 10.00
invoice Dat~ PIO Date Descri;tion Gross Discount NEt
Check Totals: lC.00 0.00 1C.Oe
00010440 06;12192 NESG.TOR ,NES B. TORGA
0~03~2 0~/0~/92 C610~192 ~ILEAGE REIHBURSEEN~ ~0.24 0.00
00010441 06112192 OCBREPRO .0C8 REPROGRAPHICS, INC.
~98868 06/01192 11586 05105/92
$99240 06101192 11584 05/05/92
397185 05128/92 1158& 05105192
~96603 O5/28192 11586 05105/92
396881 05/28/92 11586 05/05R2
~95044 05126192 11586 05105192
~96349 05/27/92 11584 05105/92
Check Totals: ~0.24 0.00 $C.24
PRINTING COSTS;CORk. CENTER
PRINTING COSTS;COI~.CENTER
PRINTING COSTG;CD!~.CENTER
PRINTING COSTS;CORk. CENTER
PRINTING COSTS;COI~.CENTER
PRINTING COSTG;CONR,CENTER
PRINTING COSTS;CORk.CENTER
55.49 0.00 55.49
56.91 O.OO 5&.91
12.46 0.00 12.46
89.00 0.00 89.00
21.77 0.00 21.77
47.71 0.00 47.71
Check Totals:
00010442 061!2!92 PERSRETI.P~S ERPLOYES' RETIREENT
2PERR.79 06/04/92 06104192 Normal P/R, 6104192
060492 06104192 0~/04/92 PAYRENT RETIRERENT 5/16-5/29
315.67 0.00 $15.67
25~.17 0.00 25~.!7
00010445 0&/12192 PLANNERS PLANNERS BOOKSTORE
48~&02 0&/03/97 10~6 09/24R!
Check Totals:
CSULTS,HIST PRESVJAX,CLUSTER
14,142.20 0.00 14,142.20
69.55 0.09 5~.55
00010444 06/12192 PRESLEY PRESLEY OF SAN DIEGO
051992 05I!9192 05119192
00010445 04112!92 PRIVET1 ;PRIHETINE SOFTWARE, INC.
060992 06/09192 06109/92
Check Totals:
OVERCHAR6E ON REC.
Check Totals:
SOFTWARE UPBRADE
69,55 0.00 69.55
~;,50 0,00 ;5,50
680.21 0.00 680.21
00010446 06112R2 PROLOCK PRO LOCK & KEY
2917 05127192 11450 04101192
Check Totals: 680.21 0.00 680.2!
ACCOUNT FOR KEYS;CITY HALL 7.54 0.00 7.54
00010447 06/12/92 RAN-CAL .RAN-CAL 3ANITORIAL SUPPLY
5205 05/22192 11588 05112/92
5258 ~6/0~/92 11588 05112/92
5217 05127192 11565 04/29/92
Check Totals:
OPEN ACCOUNI;SUPPLtES;C!TY
OPEN ACCOUNT!SUPPLIES;CITY
OPEN ACCOUNT;TEED
7.54 0.00 7.54
47.59 0.00 47.39
56.01 0.00 54.01
54.46 0.00 54.46
00010448 06/12192 RANCHDBL. RANCHO BLUEPRINT
41370 04/27/92 11408 04/01/92
41999 06101192 11426 05125/92
41901 05129192 1!~00 02/11192
(I?03 05/29192 11300 02!!!/92
Check Totals:
RAPS AND MYLARE
RAPPING SUPPLIES &BLUPR!NTS
BLUEPRINTS~ ENBINEER!NG DEPT.
BLUEPRINTS~ ENBINEER!NS DEPT.
157,86 0,00 157.86
249,01 0,00 249,01
4.65 0.00 4.65
18.67 0.00 18.67
2~.27 O.OO 2~.27
00010449 06/12/~2 RANCH~TR RAKSHO WATER
C11!700022 0511;/92 05/13/92
010~30852 05/0~,'~2 05/061~2
!~1215012~ 05/20/?2
!24000022K 05120/92 05/20/92
108000012K 05/0S/92 05106/~2
IiSOS3~!IK 0~/20/92 05/20/92
124000!52K 05/20t92 05~20~92
Check Totals:
05/!7-041i6
05/i0-04,'0~
0151215012/
01240000221 ~125-412~
0108000012/~/16-4/14
01160~Z11/~/2~-4/21
0124000152/~/25-4/24
295.60 O,OO 295,60
129.OA- 0.00 i29.04-
2:7.07- O.O0 2:7.07-
99.14 0.00
~5.6E O.OO 95.68
4%77 0.00 49.77
91.48 0.00 91.48
Check Date Yencot Nice -.
Invoice Date P/O hts Des:ri:tion ~ross ~iscount N~t
00010450 06/12/92 RIGHTWAY RIGHTNAY
164425 Q&/Ol/92 11557
164422 O&/011~2 115H
164423 0&/01/92 11564
I&4424 Oa/O1R2 !15H
Check Totals:
04Z28/92 PORTABLE TOILET
04127R2 PORTABLE TOILET SERV.MAY&JUNE
04/27/92 PORTABLE TOILET SERV.MAY&;UNE
04/27192 PORTABLE TOILET SERV.HAY&JUNE
Check Totals:
0~010451 0&/12192 RIVERDLU RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT
7373 0&/02192 11537 04114192 CUTTING BASE;BOIIACETATE
Check Totals:
00010452 06/12/92 RIVERSID RIVERSZDE OFFICE SUPPLY
109012-0 05/2&192 11629 0511M92 SUPPLIESICITY NALL
109012-10&IO~R2 11629 0511~192 SUPPLZES~C[TY HALL
108852 05127192 11&09 04124192 FOLDER LABELS;GLUE!CLIPS
Check Totals:
0001045~ 0&1!2/~2 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
47984262 ~ 05104R2 05/04/92 47980~0000014262/GT
Check T~tals:
00010454 O&/12R2 SHAWNSCO SHAWN SCOTT POOL & SPA
0~47 0M01192 11~20 051!3i92 POOL SERVICE;DAY CAMP FACILTY
00010455 06/12/92 SiSSPEED SIR SPEEDY
5256 0&108/~2 Ilb37
Check Totals:
BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS
Check Totals:
00010456 06112/92 S~ITHSRO SMITH BROTHERS TEA~ SPORTS
008067 0a/021~2 11591 05101/92 SNIMi~EAR FOR ACUATiC PROSRA~;
00010457 06/12192 SMITHNAN NANETTE SMITH
060192 06101f92
Check Totals:
06101!~2 REFUND/DAY CA~P
Check Totals:
00010458 06i12192 SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
7142924020 05t07/92 05107192 7142924020/MAR ~I-APR 28
7458550K 04/24R2 04/24/92 7147458550/FEB 26-MAR27
Check Totals:
00010460 0~/12/~2 SOUTHCED SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON.
YTI739917k 0512M92 05/2~/92 Y717-0399!7/4117-5/19
53-100917K 05/14t92 05114192 55-i00917/418-5/8
3083958!9K 05/14/~2 05/141~2 508-3958191
308476569K 05/14192 05/!41~2 308-476369/4/9-5/8
S5~50%2K 05/14/~2 ~5/1~/92 85-750562/4/8-5/8
50~455420K 05~08/°~ 0~/~/c~ 3084~5420/ ~/3-51~
S766797K 05/!5/~2 05/15/~2 8766707/ 4/10-5/!i
S5717115~ 05!2~/82 05/27/~2 575711~/
3084045~IK 051111~2 05111/92 3034045511
N!O518466K'05/%!92 05!26/92 N!OSOiS~6a/4/20-5/!~
2~8545010K 05/26/92 05/26!~2 208545010/4/17-5/18
26,56 0,00 26,56
57,39 O,O0 57,~
22~,55 0,00 22~,55
114,78 0,00 114,78
459,11 0,00 459,11
109.05 0.00 108.05
108.05 0.00 108.05
27,75 0,00 27,75
5.95 0.00
12,45 0,00 12,45
~6,~3 0,00 46,15
45G,52 0,00 458,52
458,52 0,00 459,~2
652,00 0,00 652,00
652,00 0,00 652,00.
171,32 0,00 171,32
171,52 0,00 171,52
852,6~ 0,00 852,b9
852.69 0.00 852.~9
~ 0n 0,00 20,00
20,00 0,00 20,00
101,05 0,00 101,05
225,85 0,00 25,85
524,90 0,00 324,90
105,04 0,00 105,04
L85 0.00
8.70 0.00 8.70
8.70 0.00 S.7~
9.00 0.00 g. O0
~,50 0.00 ?.3~
~.~0 ~.00 ~.~¢
LT? ~.09 S.7~
!.4~ - 0.00 1.43
216,70 0.00 21&,70
Chec~ ~t~ Yen~or N~e '-
invoice Date P/O Date Description 6ross Discount
209452101K 05126192 05/26R2 208452101/4117-5/I~ 250..26 0,00
203005621K 05/26/92 05126192 203005624/ 4/20-5119 230.91 0.00
85674508K 05127192 05127192 85674508/4120-5/20 259.69 0.00
208446989[ 05114192 05114192 208446989/4/8-5/7 194.43 0,00
8578292K 05114192 05114192 857912921 4/8-517 240..72 0.00 24~.72
NiTOI2O12K 05126192 05126192 N17012012/4117-5119 238.32 O.O0 25~.52
85082944~ 05~26~92 05126192 85082944/4/20-5119 56.47 0.00 5~.47~
YTi7050T$3 05/26/92 05/26192 4/17-5119 10.7.53 0.00 !97.5~
Y717050732 05126192 05~26~92 Y717050lI21 4117-5/19 439.27 0.00 43%27
YT1717614K 05~26~92 05/26/92 YTi701761U 4/17-5/19 858,02 0,00 858.02
Y'/1750835K05/26192 05126192 Y7170508551 4117-5119 500.81 0.00 500.BI
YS671OOX~a 04124192 04124/92 Y367010011/ 3/20-4117 275.25 0.00' 275.2~
Y71750830K '05/26/r2 05~26~92 Y717050830/ 4117-5/19 78.09 0.00 78.0~
Y71744950K 05126/92 05126/92 Y7170H950/ 4117-5/19 953.94 0.00 95~.9~
Y7174288 05~26~92 05/26/92 Y717042818/ 4/17-5/19 247.90 0.00 247,90
Y166L7029K 05126192 05~26~92 Y166L-O070291 4/20-5/19 61.9~ 0.00
Y566L1BB1[ 05/26/92 05~26192 ~66L-001881/4/20-5119 285.01 0.00
Y366L7672K 05/26/92 05126/92 YI66L-O07672/4/20-5/10. 582.22 0.00
00010461 06/12/92 SPETZ,LI SPETZ, LISA
C60292 06102/92
06102192
Chec~ Totals: 6,151.86 0.00 6451.86
~ILEASE ALLOWANCE 10.08 0.00 10.08
00010462 0~/12R2 SUPERTON SUPER TONER
000278 06103192 11640
0512910.2
Check Totals: IO.OB 0.00 I0.08
RECHARGE TONER CARTRIEBES 515.00 0.00 515.00
Check Totals: 315.00 0.00 3!F"'~
00010463 06112!92 TARGET TARGET STORE
060892 06/08/92 06/08/92 SUPPLIES FOR DAY CA~P 0.0,00 0.00 90.00
00010464 0611210.2 TEN PIPE TEflECULA VALLEY PIPE
27835 05112192 11585 0~/02R2
27599 05105/92 !1385 0~I02192
Check Totals:
OPEN ACCOUNT;HISG.ITE~;TCSD
OPEN ACCOUNT;~!GC.!TEMS;TCSD
90.00 0.00 90.00
44.29 O.OO 44.2~
22.61 O.OO 22.61
00010465 05/12192 TEHCULAT TEMECULA TOWHE ASSOC
06020.2 05/51/0.2 0227 07/01/91
04300.20R 04/30/92 0227 07/01/91
043092 0413010.2 04130192
04300.2-1 04/30/92 0227 07/01/91
Check Totals:
66.90 0.00 66.0.0
HAY CLEANING 105.00 0.00 105.00
CR ME~D ON RENT 300.00- 0.00 300.00-
BAKE OFF CLEAN-UP 4115192 15.00 0.00 15.00
HAY RENT/APRIL CLEANING 405.00 0.00 405.0~
Check Totals:
00010466 06/1210.2 TEHHUSEU TEHECULA ~USEUM FOUNDATION
0~1092 06110/92 06/10192 REFUN~ ON BUS. LIC. APPL
225.00 0.00 225.0e
55.00 0.00 55.0e
Check Totals:
00010467 06112/92 TEHVLY-2 TEHECULA VLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT
~_~o~ 06204~,- 06104/92 KP~ CUSTO~IAL
55.00 0,00 35.01
Check T~al,'
00010~65 0~/12/72 TEMULYTK TE~ECULA VALLEY TK[,
06Ctel 06101/92 06i01/72 DE~O)!STRATiDN
00010460· 06/12/72 T!M,~INS~, DANIEL T. T!+I~INS
Check Totals:
!~4.00 O.OC
5~.00 O.O0
50.00 O.OC 50.05
!nvolcs Date PZO Date ~es:ription Gross
C60!92 06/01R2 06/01/92 DIS. REFUND/DAY CA~P 20.00 0.00 2C.OC:
ChecL Totals:
00010470 0~!12192 UNITOS UNITOS RENTAL SERVICE
8771570515 05115!92 0565 02127/~2 UNIFORMS RENTAL;PUBLIC MORKS
20.00 0.00 20.00
12.50 0.00 12.50
00010471 0&/~2/92 USCM USCM
2PTRT.79 06/04/92
$PTRT.79 0&/04/92
Check Totals:
0&104192 Normal P/R, 6104192
O&/04/t2 Normal P/R, &lO41t2
12.50 0.00 12.50
142.99 O.OO 142.9~
142.99 0.00 142.99
Check Totals:
00010472 06/12/92 MEGTHIGH MEGTERN HIGHMAY PRODUCTS
214448 05/281t2 11&42 05128/92 BATTERIES;FLASNINB BARRICADES
285.98 0.00 285.98
I15.I8 O.OO
00010475 0&/!2i92 MESTLUN9 WESTERN LUHBER
~876~ 05/05R2 !14~5
050592 05/05!92 1!4A5
Check Totals:
05/20/92 MOODEN POSTBICIP SIGNS
01/20/92 WOODEN POSTS;CIP SIGNS
~15.58 0.00 515.38
79.95 0.00 79.~5
47.9! 0.00 47.ti
Check Totals:
00010475 0~/25!92 BURKE,iN BURKE, W!LLIAMS & SORENSEN
0%22 04/30192 04/30/~2 APRIL SERVICES
97000 05121/92 05/21/92 FEES RENDERED THROUGH 4/~0
127,S4 0,00 127.84
3,665.59 0.00
11j2t94 0.00 11,529.94
Check Totals:
00010476 0&12~I92 CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
'~°""0 ~' 11545 --,
~, 5~ C5/51/~2 04114192 TRI~ TREc='WINCHESTER
5085205~5 05151R2 11529 0411&192 REPAIR VALVE;VETERANS PARK
~005205~2 05/51/92 11~11 02/lt!92 REPLACE 6ROUN~ COVER;YNEZ RD.
~0~5205~ 05151R2 11528 04/16/t2 REPAIR VALVE;SPORTS PARK
30052034 05/~IR2 'I1542 04/1&/~2 LO~A LINOA P[~REHOVE DEBRIS
14,993.55 0,00 14,995.55
550.00 0.00 550.G0
46.44 0.00 46.44
208.00 0.00 208.00
61.67 0.00 61.67
1,050.00 0.00
Check Totals:
00010477 06/2~I92 COUNTYAD COUNTY OF RIVERSIDEINNTL.NLTH
060~72 06/03/.92 11639 06/02/92 TRAUMA INTERVENTION;TEEN CTR.
1,916.11 0.00 1,916.11
1,200.00 0.00 1,200.00
Check Totals:
00010478 06/25!92 CR&RCORP CR&R INCORPORATED
063092 06I~0/92 0~43 01/14/92 ERGO 9>54, ~AN-~UNE
1,200.00 0.00 1,200.00
5o~ ,. 0.00 585,719.56
Check Totals:
00010479 06125/~2 ESBILCOR ESBIL CORPORATION
9/t1/92 05I~1/92 05/)1/92 SERVICES FROM 511192-5131192
585,7!9.36 0.00 585,719.56
7,486.52 0.00 7,484.52
00010480 06/23/$2 N E S N B S / LOWRY
RO42057FMid 04/24/$2 0578
Check Totals:
05112/92 PRELIH.ROUTE DES1GN;~EST BYPS
7,486.52 0.00 7,486.52
9,098.61 0.00 ~,098.61
00010481 06/2~/92 ORANGE
00!?749
Check Totals:
ORANGE COUNTY STRIPIN~ SERVIC
05/21/~2 0394 0~/01/~2 LtNI~ & =~cy~:.~
9,098.6! O.OO ?.098.S1
000!0432 0~/25/92 ?ETROLAN PETROLANE
193610 06102/~2 11401
Check Totals:
03!!3/92 CONVERT B&S TRUOK;PROP~E
c' 90~. O0 O.OO ~.905.00
1,426.96 0.00 1,426.9&
....... : ~- ,. ~ ~-..-= .:.C.... OR
v' rAy,c, ~,., ,~ ROSERTBE DB BEI~:. FRO~T ~ ASSO
2-2006C~ 0i/01/~20SBB Ol/01R2 A~EN~UM )I;ST~T ~I~EN!N8 27~.95- 0.00 27~.~
2-200~ 05/25/~2 0~c' 04/n~/~ ADcN~UM t~;cTP~T W!DENIN~ ~ U?.~5 5.57~.95
..... 0.00
:-.lw, 04/01/~2 04/01R2 SERVICES FOR NOV ~2
Check Totals: 7,255.00 0.00 7,255.00
000~04B4 0~/S/92 WZLLDAN tILLDAN ASSOCIATES
4004256-$ 04121/92 - .-0~121192 SERV.-RE!EI. FJIRCH 92 - 1,025.00 0.00 1,025.00
400~25b 04101192 0U01192 SERV. REND RARCH t2 1B,O1J.69 0.00 18sO14.bt
qOO~20&CR 04101192 04101192 CREDIT ML~O/OVER BILLED 4,000.S4- O.OO 4~OOO,g~-
Check Totals: 15,0~B.85 0.00 15,0~8.95
Report lotals: 720,10~.66 0.00
F.~;:r: Krlt~' CHECK LZST!N~
.u~ CHESK ......... DATE VENDOR NAME
001 00010400 06/05/92 DAVLIN
001 00010400 06/05/92 DAVLIN
001 00010401 06/05/92 RIV. CO. HADITAI CONSERVATION
001 00010402 06/05/~2 PEPS (HEALTH INSUR. PREHI~)
00i 00010405 06/12/92 AHERICAN BUSINESS FORMS
001 00010406 04/12/92 APOLLO SWEEPING COMPANY
001 0001N07 04/12/92 APPLE ONE
001-00010409 04/12/92 A T & T
001 00010410 04/12/92 AUTONOTIVE SPECIALISTS
001 00010414 06/12/92 ~LIFORNIAN
001 00010414 0&112/92 CALIFORNIAN
001 00010414 04/12/~ CALIFORNIAN
00i 00010414 04112192 CALIFORNIAN
001 00010414 04/12192 CALIFORNIAN
001 00010415 0U12/92 CITY OF LIVERHD~E
OOl 00010414 06112/92 COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
001 00010417 06112/92 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
001 0001041~ 06112192 EURD-DEL[*HOHE CATERING
001 00010421 04112/92 FARALLON CDNPUTINB~ INC
001 00010423 04/12/92 BLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
001 00010424 06!12!92 BTE
001 00010424 0&/12/~2 GTE
001 000i0424 06/12/~2 BTE
001 00010424 04/12/~2 GTE
001 00010428 06/!2/~2 INLAND CALL A~ERICA
001 00010429 04/12/92 JENNACO
001 000104~0 06/!2t~2 L & ~ FERTILIIER
001 00010432 06/I2/92 LOCAL GOUERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
001 00010434 06/12/92 LUNCH & Sl~F CAIERINS
001 00010436 06/12192 MARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
001 00010437 06/!2/92 MARTIN & CHAPMAN
00! 00010440 06/12/~2 NESS. TORGA
00! 000104~2 06/12/72 PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
001 00010442 04/!2/92 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
001 00010442 06/12/92 PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIRENENT
001 00010443 0U12/~2 PLANNERS BOOKSTORE
001 000104~4 06/12/~2 PRESLEY DF SAN DIEGO
n~, 000!04~5 04t12192 PRI~ETIME SOFTWARE, 1NC.
vv, .
001 00010446 04!12/92 PRO LOCK & KEY
00! 00010447 06/!2/~2 RAN-CAL JANITDRIAL SUPPLY
00! 00010448 06112f92 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
001 00010450 06/12192 RIGHTWAY
00! 00010451 04/!2/92 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT
00! 000104'52 04/!2/92 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
001 00010452 06/12/92 RIVERSIDE DFHCE SUPPLY
001 00010455 06/12/92 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
001 00010455 06/12/92 SIR SPEEDY
001 000104~0 06/12/9~ SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
001 00010460 06/12/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
001 000!0~0 05/12/~2 SOUTHERN gALIF E~ISD~
001 O00i<;160 05/!2/72 SOUTHERN BALiF
OOl 000!04~¢ ,',' ,.~,e~
~=:.~, ,~ SOUTHERN C .... E~!SO~
00! 00010460 r"'
o~/~'~ SOUTHERN CAL!F E~ISOK
u. 00010460 ....... SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON
001 000!0160 06/12/~2 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
00! 00010451 06/12/~2 ~=~ LISA
061 000104~2 06/'~ SUPER TONER
MAY '~ COUNCIL HEELING 6:': .:'
MAY 26 COUNCIL HEETING 6C'2 .C..
PAYHENT FOR K-RAT/MAY 92
INSURANCE PREMIUM JUNE ~2 I.:..~61 .~.
BUILDING PERMIl APPL!CATION~
EMERGENCY SWEEP 412
TEI~P.SERV. W/E 5123~FINANCE
7520694034001 4/28-5125 11E.4:
SERV .LT .TONER;TRAILER HITCH 474.5T
LEGAL NOTICES; CTY CLERK 5129 2~,.4T
LEGAL NOTICES~ 4129 PLN DEPI,
LEGAL NOTICES; CITY CLERK IC,B~
LEGAL NOTICES; CTY CLERK 5129 84,41
LEGAL NOTICES~ CITY CLERK ~4.07
CAPT, IMPR PROB, FT 90-91&72 5,0?
SHIP/HAND-CAL JOSS & FUTURE LOG
APRIL 92 4E.3.~
LUNCH FOR STAFF HEETINS
ANNUAL SUPPORT CHARGES 754:.0C
OPEN P,O, FOR MISC. ITEMS
699230~/4/23-5/15
7146953539/ 4/30-4/24
6970:2B/5122-6/2!
694!95~/4124-5/22 1.95,l,7E:
6~44348/41!B-51i7 2,410.3E
JAN!TDRIAL SERV. 4/!-4/15
OPEN ACCDUNT;~ISC.TOOLG 15e.85
92 SUPPLEMENT-LONBTIN CA LAND 74,5,1
COUNCILMEMBER/STAFF DINNER
COFFEE SERVICE 47,4C}
RESOLUTIONS/EVENTSIELEC MANUA 41.20
MILEAGE REIMBURSENENT
PAYMENT RETIREMENT 5/16-5/29 2,175.83
Normal P/R: 6/04/92 25~. 17
PAYMENT RETIREMENT 5116-5/29. 8,743.36
CSULTS, H I ST PRESV: TAX: CLUSTER d,9.5~
OVERCHARGE ON REC, I3.5C!
SOFTWARE UPBRADE 680.21
ACCOUNT FOR KEYS;CITY HALL 7.54
OPEN ACCOUNT;SUPPLIES;CITY 105.40
BLUEPRINTS; ENGINEERING DEPT. 41.94
PORTABLE TOILET 57.3
CUTT INS BASE; BOX ~ ACETATE 108.
SUPPLIES;CITY HALL 3,1,4E.
FOLDER LABELS;BLUE~CL!PS I2.45
4798020000014262/GT 455.~2
BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS !71.'~2
Y717Oq2BVB/ 4117-5/i~ 247.~C.
Y7170507~2/4/17-5/19
Y717-0399i7/ :.:., ....
4u'-:nc' 105,0,'
!~7,53
7E.C::.
275.2~
41!7-5/19
Y717050830! 4117-5/I?
Y717C~0S~3/ ,~, ,.,,,
Y717044950/ 4/17-5/I~
Y717C17414/~/17-5/!9
Y~670!0011/ 3/20-4/17
KILEASE ALLOWANCE
RECHARGE TONER CARTRIDGES
001 00010465
00! 00010465 O&112/t2
COl 00010466
OOi 0001047C 06/!2/92
001 00010471 06/12/92
001 00010472 06/12!92
001 00010475
001 00010475 06/23192
001 00010475
001 00010477
001 00010479 0612~!9~
001 00010481 06/23/92
001 00010482 06/23192
00! 00010483 06123/t2
001 00010484
001 00010484
001 00010484
iE~ECULA TOINE ABSCC
TEMECULA TO~NE ASSOC
TEMECULA TOWNE ASSOC
TEMECULA TOWNE ASSOC
TEMECULA MUSEU~ FOUNDATION
UN!TOB RENTAL SERVICE
USCM
WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS
WESTERN LUHBER
DURKE~ NILLIAMS & SORENSEN
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE/MNTL.HLlH
ESSIL CORPORATION
ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC
PETROLAWE
ROBERT BEIN, NM. FROST & ASSO
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
tILLDAN ASSOCIATES
MAY RENT/APRIL CLEANING
CR MEMO ON RENT 5~':..C:
MAY CLEANING
REFUND ON DUG. LIC. APPL ~.(.
UNIFORHS RENTAL)PUBLIC WORKS
Normal P/R, ~/04/92
BATTERIES;FLASHING BARRICADES
WOODEN PDSTS)CIP SIGNS "' '
FEES RENDERED THROUGH 4/30 11,02~,6C
TRAUNA INTERVENTION|TEEN CTR,
SERVICES FROM 511192-51~!i92
LINING & LEGENDS)ST,SIGNS
CONVERT B&S TRUCK~PROPANE 1,~,9~
SERVICES FOR NOV 92
CREDIT ~EMO/OVER ~ILLED 4,~0,~
GERV, REND MARCH 92
SERV, REND, MARCH 92
001
019 00010402 06105/92
019 00010405
0!? 000i040E 06112/92
017 00010~0S
019 00010411
019 00010412
019 00010413
0!9 00010418
019 00010420
019 00010422 06/12/92
017 00010425
019 00010426 06/12/92
019 00010426
019 00010426
019 00010427 06112/92
01~ 000104~i 06/12/72
019 000t0455 06/12/?)2
0!9 00010435 06/12/~2
019 000!04~5 06/12R2
n~" 06/1n192
_? 00010455 ....
019 00010~55 06/12/92
Olq 00010458 06/!21~2
017 00010459 06/12/92
01~ 00010442 06/12/92
0!9 00010447 06/12/92
019 0001044B 06/12/92
019 0001044B 06/12/92
Ol9 00010449
019 00010i4~ 06/12/92
017 00010~4~ 06/12/92
~!9 00010~44 06112!92
017 O0010ii~ 0~/!2/~2
Ci~ 00010449 06/12/~2
017 00010~:~ 06/!2/92
0!? 000104~4 06/12/12
PEPS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIUm)
POSTMASTER
ARTESIA IMPLEMENT
ARTESIA IMPLEHENT
BARB'S BALLOONING AFFAIR
BOSTON SUPERHARKET & BAKERY
CALIFORNIA ANGELS
TINA ERICKSDN
JOHN FAHEY
FLAG HOUSE
H & H CRAFT
HANKS HARDWARE
HANKS HARDWARE
HANKS HARDWARE
HD~E WELDING & FABRICATION
LAIDLAW TRANSiT~ iNC.
LUCKY MARKET
HARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSDC,
~ARGARIIA OFFICIALS ASSOC,
MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSOC.
MARGARIIA OFFICIALS ASSDC.
EDWARD MOSS
MICHAEL NELSON
PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
RAN-CAL JANITDRIAL SUPPLY
RANCHO BLUEPRINT
RANCHO BLUEPRINI
RANCHO ~ATER
RAXCHG WATER
RANCHO WATER
RANCHO WATER
RAK:HO WATER
RA~Z~G WATER
RA~CHD WATER
RIgHTWAY
SHAWN SCOTT POOL ~
..
97,~7.BE
INSURANCE PEEMIU~ jUNE 92
BULK MAIL BROCHUREJCSD)
SERVICE CHARGE
ADJUST HAND ~RAKE/50EX-4
DECORATION FRONT COVER PROS, 43.I(
CHROME PLTD SRLVS;CDNCESSION
DEPOSIT FOR GAME "'~0.0(
CPR/FIRST AiD CERTIFICATION
REFUND/DAY CANP 20.0!
FIRST-AID;WHISILE;TCSD ~10.S:
~ .... eUPPelES/ 200.0~
~R.r, ~ , . lAY CAMP
TOILET FIXTUREISEAI;SPT.PRK. 151.9;
OPEN ACCOUNt;HISC. PARTS;TCG) 145.7~
ELONSATE~ WHITE TOILET;SPT.PK
FAD.& INSTL SKYLT;CONCESSIDN 157.21
TRANS.-LAKE GREGORY[DAY CAMP
SNACK,FOR DAY CAMP 100.0!
UMPIRES APRIL 92 198.0'
UMPIRES 5/9/92 198.0
UHPIRES APRIL 92
UMPIRES MAY 92 CHSS I,$64.0
REFUND/DAY CAMP 80.6
REFUN~ SUMNER DAY CAMP 10.0
PAYMENT RETIREMENT 5/16-5/29
OPEN ACCOUNT;TCGD 54.4
HAPS AND HYLARS
MAPPINB SUPPLIES &BLUPRINTS 4.6
0124000022/5/25-4/24 99,1
0124000152/:/25-4/24
051!0-04/05 237.0
~0S0000!2/3/16-~/!~
05/17-04/1& ' 12 .e
~.~
POOL SERVICE:DAY CAMP FAClLTY
S~pgr: ~ri~r
FUND CHECK NUmbER CHEC[ DATE VENDOR NA~ ESCRIFTIGN-- AMDUXT
019 0001045b 0&/12/92 S~ITH BROTHERS TEA~ SPORTS SNI~EAR FOR AQUATIC PROGRA~
01~ 00010457 06/Z2/92 NANETTE SMITH REFUND/DAY CAMP
019 00010458 061121t2 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 7147458550/FEB 2b-MAR27
019 00010458 0&112192 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 7142~24020/M~R SI-APR 28 I~I.05
019 00010460 061121t2 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 857~711b/4/23-5722 8.79
019 00010460 0&/12/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDisoN ~08465420/413-514 ~,30
019 00010460 06/12192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 208~45010/4117-5118 21&.7C
0!9 00010460 06/12192 SOUTHERN CALEF EDISON 85674508/4120-5/20
019 00010460 06112/~2 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON Y366L-O018811 4/20-5117 : 2~3.0!
0!9 00010460 06112192 SOUTHERN CALZF EDISON 2084321011 4117-5119 259.26
019 00010460 06/12/92 SOUTHERN CAUF EDISON 87~7~71 4110-5/11 9.$0
019 00010460 06112192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 508404531/411-4/~0
019 00010460 06112192 SOUTHERN CALiF SO]SON 2050056241 4120-5119 2~0.91
019 00010460 06/12192* SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 31154661 4/9-5/8 9.92
019 00010460 06112192 SOUTHERN CAUF EDISON N170120121 4117-5119
019 000104&0 06/12/t2 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 857932q2/4/R-517 2~9.72
019 00010460 06/12/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON Y~66L-O076721 4/20-5/19 $82,22
019 00010460 06/12192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 55-100917/418-518 9.85
019 00010460 06/12/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ~08-476569/4/9-5/8 8.7C
019 00010460 0b112/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON N105018466/4/20-5119 IG,31
019 00010460 06/12/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDisoN 850829441 4120-5119 5b,47
019 00010460 0&/12/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 85-7505b21 4/8-5/B
019 000104~0 06/12t92 SOUTHERN CALZF EDISON. ~08-~93819/419-51G 8.70
0!9 00010460 0b/12192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON YSbGL-O07029/4/20-5/1~
019 000104&0 0&/12/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 208446989/4/8-5/7 184,43
019 0001045~ 0&/12/92 TARGET STORE SUPPLIES FOR DAY CAMP 90.00
019 00010464 0&I12/92 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE OPEN ACCOUNTIHISC,ITEHSITCSD
019 00010455 0&112/92 TEHECULA TON!IS ASSOC BAKE OFF CLEAN-UP 4/15/92 15,00
019 00010467 0&/!2/92 TEECULA VLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT NPR CUSTO~IAL 615-&l&
0!~ 00010468 O&/12/t2 TENECULA VALLEY TKD DEMONSTRATION 5/21/~2
019 0001046~ 0~/12/92 DANIEL i. TINNING DIS, REFUND/DAY CA~P 20,0C
019 00010471 0&/121~2 USCM Normal P/R~ 5/04/92 L50,7~
019 00010475 06/25tt2 BURKE, ~ILLIAHS & SORENSEN FEES RENDERED THROUGH 4/30
0!9 00010476 0&/25/92 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE REPAIR VALVE;SPORTS PARK ~l,&]
019 0001047& 0&12~/92 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE REPAIR VALVE;VETERANS PARK 4&.44
019 0001047& O&!23/t2 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE LOMA LZNDA PK~REROVE DEBRIS 1~050,0(
019 00010~7& O&/2$/t2 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE REPLACE GROUND COVERIYNEZ. R~. 208.0(
0!~ 0001047& 0~I23/92 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE TRIM TREES!NIN:HESTER 550.0(
019 00010478 O&/2S/t2 CR&R INCORPORATED RESO 9!-54~ aAN-OUE ~2 585,719.38
019
021 00010480 0&123t92 N B S I LONRY PRELIN,ROUTE DESIONIMEST GYPS 9,098.61
021 00010483 0~/23/92 ROBERT BEIN, iN, FROST & ASSO ADENDUN tqISTREET NIDENIN6 5~300,0(
02! 14,398.6:
02~ 00010441 O&/12/t2 OCB REPROSRAPH!CS, INC, PRINTING COSTS~COH~.CENTER
C~eck Dat~ Vendor Naoe
Invoice . Date PIO Date !es:ri;tion Gr:~ 2iscount ~t
00010245 05118192 PDULTER ANBER POULTER
051892 05/18/92
05/19R2 BOX CONTRACl CLASS SUPER S:l 244.B0
Check Totais: 244.90
00010487 06/16/92 ALLIED ALLIED BARRICADE
123464-00 06105192 11653 05126192 SIBNS; HISC. HARDWARE.PUB.NKS 285.84 0,00 285.8!
122945-00 05/26/92 11655 05/26/92 SIBNS; ~ISC. HARDNARE.PUB.NkS 327.02 0.00 ~27.0:
122759-00 05126192 ll&5~ 05126/V2 SIBNS; HISC, HARDWARE.PUB,iNS 204,73 0.00 204.7:
BB75CR 05/26/92 11655 05/26/92 CR NERO NO TAX-)AJ{GB 303.50- 0.00 ~.50-
122760-00 05/26/92 11655 05/26/~2 SIGNS; ~ISC. NARDWARE.PUB.iNS 30~.50 0.00 105.50
0.00 244,~"~
0.00 244.80
Check Totals: B17.59 0.00 817.59
00010489 06116/92 DOUBLETR l'l DOUBLETREE HOTEL
000709 05106R2 05106R2 516 BANQUET 677,12 0,00 677,I2
Check Totals: 677.12 0,00 677.12
00010489 06/16/~2 EDC EDC LUNCHEON
061192 0~111/92 06t11R2 R,C, ECON, DEVEL. ABENCY CDNF BO,OO O.OO BO.OO
Check Totals: BO.O0 0.00 BO.O0
00010490 06116/92 ~TEDILL 6T~
699~652K 06/07/?2 06/07/92 ~14'0086~~/6/4 ~ =' O.OO !6J!
Check Totals:
00010492 0&I16/92 HEINZELH ALFRED HEINZELHANN
052692 05/26/92 05/26/92 PARTIAL REFUND/PLOT PLAN 234
16.91 0.00 16.91
~5.40 0.00 55.40
55.40 0.00
1,927.00 0.00 1,927.00
00010495 06116192 LOCAL
060492
Check Totals:
lOCAL 80VERNMENT COMMISSION
06104192 06104192 NEWSLETTER UPDATE
!,927.00 0.00 IJ27.00
20.00 0.00 20.00
Check Totals:
00010494 06/16/92 M&HASSOC ffi & M ASSOCIATI0N
061092 04/10/92 06/10/92 DUES AND MEMBERSHIP
20.00 0.00 20.00
550.00 0.00 550.00
00010495 06116/92 MAURIDE
24387
Check Totals:
BAURiCE PRINTERS QUICK PRINT
04/08/92 11628 05119/92 DIVIDERS;TABS)ANNUAL BUDBET
350.00 0.00 550.00
506.42 0.00 506.i2
00010496 06116/92 HOOREPEB PEB NODRE
052492 05126/92
Check Totals:
05126/92 BTE REIMBURSE 4114 & 5/26
504.42 0.00 506.42
59.!3 0.00 59.!5
Check Totals:
00010497 06f!6/~2 ORANGERE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
5010150 051~1/92 11646 05/2~192 jOB RECRUIT.ADS;HUmAN ~E~OU~C
59,13 0,00 39.13
~.-~ 325.16
O0010aq~ 06/1L'92 PAY' ES
Ciech
PAYLESS DRUB STO~ES
525.16 C,O(' 525.!6
~,01 0.00
00010499 06/';199 PPPS=NT D~cSc ENTERPRISE
Check Totals:
Fis:aZ ~=a.' :??2 .... r. Re::stez'
Check D~:s Veneer Name
Invoice Date P/D Date De~cri:tion Sro;; Discount
053172 05/31/92 10927 10/02/91 ADV.EMPLOYMENI POSITI)S 314.25 O.OC :!~.2~
053192-1 05/S1!92 116i~ 05/29/92 JOB RECRUIT. ADS:HUMAN RESDUR 151.8~ 0.00
053192-2 05/13/92 11587 05/08/92 JOB RECRUIlENl ADS 210.96 ¢.00
055192-3 05/$IR2 11~!7 02/19/92 OPEN ACCOUNT FOR JOB ADS 10.98 0.00 I0.9E
053192-4 05/11/92 10947 10/02/91 LEBAL NDT!CES~ CITY CLERK 141.57 0.00 141.57
Check TotaZs:
00010500 06/16/92 RANCHOCN. RANCHD CANYON NEDICAL BROUP
061592 06/15t92 06115192 REIHD. ~EI)ICAL EXPIAUB, 91
809.61 0.00 809.&1
44.00 0.00 44.00
Check Totats:
00010501 06/16/92 RDBERTBE ROBERT REIN, NN. FROST & A~O
1-120220R 04/01/92 0186 04/01R2 DR, PAY BAL OF REINBUR.
44.00 0.00 44.00
301.05 0.00 301.05
Check Totals=
00010502 06/16/92 SCHEiDEC JACK RDNALD SCHEIDECKER AND
061592 06/15/92 06/15/92 90-V1 TAX BILL/RE-ISSUED
301.05 0.00
119.85 0.00 !!~.83
00010503 06/1&192 SIRSPEED SIR SPEEDY
5298 06/12/92 10928
Check Totals|
I0102/91 BUS.CARDS FOR NEW E~PLDYEES
119.85 0.00 119.85
38.7~ 0.00 38.79
Check Totals:
00010504 06/1&/92 SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
3457421K 05107/92
$493439 0al26192
2874840K 06/08/92
3493436K 06108t92
34~3438K 06108192
2874841K 06/08/92
05/07/92 7145457421t $/14-4/26
06/26/92 7147495439I ACCESS CHB. 5/31
06/08/92 7142874840/4/29-5/29
06/08/92 7143493456/4/30-5/27
06/08/92 7143493458/4/24-5/29
06/08/92 LATE CHARBE
Check Totals:
00010505 06/16R2 SPEEDYSI SPEEDY SIGN-O-RAMA
1752 05/27/92 11649 05/27/92 AUTO BANNERS;PARADE
38.79 0,00 38.79
290.95 0.00 290.95
$6.55 0.00 $6.55
134.83 0.00
5~,82 0.00 55,82
87.47 0,00 87.47
0,77 0,00 0.77
0.00
$2,$3 0.00
00010506 06/I6/72 STEPP JOAN L. STEPP
060292 06/02/92
Check Totals:
06102t92 REISSUE CR/RFND ASSESS 90-91
~ u 0 32,33
82~02 0.00 82.02
00010507 06/16/92 TUMBLEJU TUHBLE jUNBLE
060192 06101192
Check Totals=
0&101t92 CONTRACT CLASSES/801 REB.
82.02 0.00 82,02
1,472.00 0.00 1~472.00
Check Totals:
00010509 061!6/92 UNITOG UNITOS RENTAL SERVICE
8771570612 06/!2/92 0365 02/27192 UNIFDRHS RENTAL;PUBLIC ~DRKS
1,472.00 0.00 1,472.00
!2.50 0,00 12.50
Check Totals:
0001050? 06/16192 WESTERNR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNG!L
0615~2 06/15/72 06/10/~2 ANNUAL ASSEmbLY ~EETIN~
12.50 0.00 12.50
20.00 n 0~ 20.00
~-_ 00010510 06/!6/72 ZI~ERLE STEVE ZI~MERLE
C61092 06110/~2
Check Totals:
06/10/92 ~ILEABE REIHB.
20. OC! 0.' q 20:. O0
a8.32 O.O0 68.32
Check Totals:
68.52 0.00 68.32
00010511 06/25/92 ALHAMBRA ALHAHBRA BROUP
~= ~= ...... 05/2~/~2 L'.NDSCAP: YN~Z/.KEDiAh iSLANDS
Check Totals:
v~.~lw~ v , ~ iNLAN~ tN~.~ "S~ALT C~ATINSS
, 0a/05/~2 040i 05/12/~2 ~ONSTR.SI;EWALDZS:VAR.SCHO2LS
Check Totals: ~,5a5.37 0.00 3~,5~5.37
00010515 0a/25/~2 JILLDAN tILLDAN ASSOCIATES
4004275-2 05t25/~2 05/25/~2 SERV. RENDERED APRIL 92 &g7.00 0,00 &~7.00
~004227CR 0&!15192 O&!15/t2 CREDIT NENO/ALREADY PD INV, $52,50- 0,00 ~2,50-
4004184DB 06/15/92 06115192 D~ NEHO-PLN CH[ RECEIPT
4004227 05/01/t2 0318 05101192 SB-821 PLAN CHEC[
400422>1 04/011t2 054B 01/2~192 PREPARE REPORTS;LEGAL DESCRIP 287,00 0,00 287,00
400422>3 04/01/~2 04/01/t2 SERV. REND 1/17-2118 125.00 0.00 12~.00
400422>4 04/~01/t2 04/01/~2 SERV. REND 1/17-2/18
400422>2 04/'01/~2 04101/~2 SERV REND. 1117-2118 50,405.59 0.00 50J05.59
Che:~ Totals: ~ 4t2.72 0.00 55.4~2.72
~ .
Report Totals: 105,300,47 0.00 105,300.47
00! 000t0487 0&i!~/92 ALLIED ~AR~ICADE
00! 00010487 06/16!92 ALLIED BARRICADE
001 O0010~BB 06/1&!92 IX DOUBLETREE HOTEL
OC! OO0101B~ 06/16/~2 EDt LUNCHEON
001 00010490 0~/16/92 ~TE
OC1 00010491 06/16/~2 HANKS HARDWARE
001 00010492 0&/16/92 ALFRED HEINZELNANN
001 00010493 0&/16/92 LOCAL BOVERNMENI COM~iSSIDN
001 00010494 0b116192 M & N ASSOCIATION
001 000104~5 06/!&/92 MAURICE PRINTERS GUICK PRINT
001 00010496 06/16/92 PEO MOORE
001 00010497 06/16/q2 ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
001' 0001049B 0~116192 PAYLESS DRUG STORES
001 00010499 06/16/92 PRESS ENTERPRISE
001 00010499 0&/16192 PRESS ENTER~ISE
001 00010499 06/16/92 PRESS ENTERPRISE
001 000104~9 06/16/92 PRESS ENTER~ISE
001 00010499 06/16192 PRESS ENTERPD!SE
001 00010500 06/I~/92 RANGHG CANYON MEDICAL GROUP
001 00010503 O&/l&/92 SIR SPEEDY
001 00010504 06/16/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
001 0001C504 06/16/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE C~.
00! 000!05~4 06/16/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE
0Cl 00010504 06/16/92 SO.CALIFORNIA IELEPHONE CO.
00i 00010504 06/1~/~2 S.CALiFDRNIA TELEPHONE CO.
001 00010504 0&/16/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
001 00010505 06/!6/92 SPEEDY SIBN-O-RANA
001 0001050~ 06/16/92 UNITOS RENTAL SERVICE
001 00010509 0~/!6/92 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL
001 00010510 06/16/~2 STEVE ZIMMERLE
001 00010511 06/23/92 ALHAMBRA GROUP
001 00010513 06/23/92 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
001 000105!; 0~/2~/92 HILLDAN ASSOCIATES
001 00010513 06/23/92 WILLDAN ASS~IATES
001 00010513 06/23/92 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
001 00010513 06/23/72 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
001 0001051~ 06/23/92 WILLOAk ASSOCIATES
00i 0001051~ 06/23/92 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
SiS~E: HISS, HARDWAE.PUS.WKS
G~ MEMO NO TAX-CHAREED
5/~ BANDUET ~77.12
R,C, ECDN, DEVEL. ASENCY CONF
71439986~2/6/4
MIS. ITEHS; PUB. WORKS ~.40:
PARTIAL REFUND/PLOT PLAN 234
NEWSLETTER UP)ATE 2~.0~
DUES AND ~NBERSHIP 55~,00
BIVIBERS;TABS~ANNUAJ. BUDGET 50&,42
GTE REIMBURSE 4/14 & 5/2&
JOB RECRUIT.A)S)HUHAN RESO~C
FILN PROCESSINB;B&S;24EXPOSUR 1,01
OPEN ACCOUNT FOR JOB ADS
ADV,EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS ~14,:5
JOB RECRUITMENT ADS
JOB RECRUIT, ADE)HUMAN RESDUR
LEGAL NOTICES= CITY CLERK 14|.5:
REI~B, MEDICAL EXPiAUB, 91
BUS,CARDS FOR NEW EMPLOYEES
7!4~4574211 3114-4126 290,95
71~5493439/ACCESS CNB. 5/51 5&.55
71~2874B~O/4/29-5/27 154,83
71454545B/4/2~-5/29 B7.47
LATE SHARSE 0.77
71434V3436/4/30-5/2? 5I.B2
AUTO BANNERS;PARADE
UNIFORMS RENTAL:PUBLIC WORKS 12.50
ANNUAL ASSEMBLY MEETING 20.00
MILEAGE REIMB.
LANDSCAPE YNEZ/NEDIAN ISLANDS Ij95.00
D~ MEMO-PLN CHK RECEIPT 2,534.65
SERV REND. 1/17-2/!S
SERV. REND 1/17-2/18 12!.00
CREDIT MEND/ALREADY PD INV. 552.50-
SERV. RENDERED APRIL 92
SB-821 PLAN CHECK
SERV. REND 1/17-2/IB 1,16~.00
001 65,228.40
011 00010501 06/!6/92 ROBERT BEIN, WM, FROST ~ ASSO DB. PAY HAL OF REIHBUR. 501.05
0!9 00010245 05/18/72 AMBER POULTER GO% CONTRACT CLASS SUPER SIT 244.80
019 00010502 06/16/92 JACK RDNALD SCHE!DECKER AND 90-91 IAX BILL/RE-ISSUED 11~.8~
019 00010506 06/16/~2 JOAN L. STEPP REISSUE CR/RFND ASSESS 90-91 82.02
019 00010507 06/16/92 TUMBLE JUNGLE CDNTRAC! CLASSES/BO~ RES. !,472.00
Ole 00010513 06!23192 ~ILLDAN ASSOCIATES PREPARE REPORTS:LEGAL DESGRiP 2S7.00
019 2,205,6~.
C21 00010512 06/2.l./72 ifiLAND ASPHALT & C.OATI..';S.'E CD'i:':TR.SiDE~:ALK~:VAF..SCHGS,E ;';,t.~),57
ITEM NO.
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Council/City Manager
FROM:
Department of Public Works
DATE: June 23, 1992
SUBJECT:
Solicitation of Bids for the Extension of Margarita Road from Solana Way
to Winchester Road
PREPARED BY: ouglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the
extension of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
BACKGROUND:
On November 12, 1991 and April 14, 1992 the City Council awarded design contracts to
Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for the design of an interim roadway from Solana
Way to Winchester Road. This design is for a two-lane roadway constructed at ultimate
grade and alignment north of North General Kearney Road and a two-lane roadway
constructed at existing grade from Solana Way to the intersection with North General Kearney
Road.
The plans, specifications and contract documents are prepared and the project is ready to be
advertised for bid purposes. The Engineer's Estimate of probable cost is 1.2 million dollars.
Staff is currently negotiating with Bedford Properties to secure the necessary right-of-way
along with a reimbursement agreement for the cost of design and construction. To construct
this road prior to the start of major construction on Ynez Road, bids need to be solicited now.
However, it must be noted that if the adjacent property owner refuses to grant the necessary
right-of-way or enter into a reimbursement agreement, the City may have to reject the bids
and not proceed with the construction at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project will be funded from a combination of Measure "A" and Development Impact
Funds. Funding allocation will be requested at the time a construction contract is awarded.
pwO2~gdrpt~92~623~iergRd.bid 061592
ITEM NO.
APPROVAL "-
CITY , rOR EY
FINANCE OFFICt~
CITY ~AGR
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
June 23, 1992
Community Facilities District 88-12 Agreement with J.F. Davidson
Associates, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services Associated with
1-15
PREPARED BY:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City iCouncil:
Authorize J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. to proceed with the final preparation of plans,
specificationsi and estimates for the Rancho California Road and Winchester Road
Interchanges as detailed under Schedule "C" of the original contract approved December 18,
1990, and reallocate $17,800.00 from the Schedule "C" budget to the Overland Overcrossing
Budget for extra work associated with the preparation of the Project Study RepOrt.
BACKGROUND:
The California Department of Transportation has now formally approved the Project Study
Reports (PSR) associated with the Overland Overcrossing, the Rancho California Road
Interchange, and the Winchester Road Interchange. The Project Study Report is a
programming ,tool used by Caltrans to evaluate the impacts of a project on the highway
system and ensure that the local agency understands the design requirements and costs
associated with the proposed construction. During the preparation of the Project Study
Reports, Caltrans revised their policies regarding information required in the report. The new
policies essentially require the addition of engineering documentation formally required at the
Project Report stage. Fortunately, these policy revisions occurred prior to the submittal of the
Project Study Reports for the Rancho California Road and Winchester Road Interchanges.
However, the~ PSR for the Overland Overcrossing had been submitted and was rejected due
to non-compliance with these new policies. This necessitated a major re-write of the PSR
prior to re-submission and approval.
-1- pwO2\egdrpt%92\0623\CFD88-12.AGR O61692
During the approval process, Caltrans staff refused to approve the proposed Overland project
due to perceived liability associated with the steep gradient approach to the Jefferson Avenue
intersection alo qg Overland Avenue. Ultimately, additional design engineering was performed
that proposed 'aising the Jefferson Intersection by 4 feet thereby lowering the approach
gradient to a level acceptable to Caltrans. With the approval of the PSR for Overland, Caltrans
also mandated ,that the City investigate the possibility that an undercrossing may provide
higher geometric standards at this location.
The above-mentioned extra effort required the expenditure of the following funds not included
within the original scope of work for the Overland Overcrossing:
A. PSR Text Revisions $4,000.00
B. Additional Design Engineering $4,000.00
C. Undercrossing Alternative $9,800.00
Total $17,800.00
The approved iProject Study Reports for both interchanges mandate the addition of
approximately 11,300 feet of auxiliary lane to the northbound exit ramps along with retaining
walls along the northbound exit ramp for Rancho California Road to avoid additional right-of-
way acquisition costs. The original contract with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc., as approved
on December 1'8, 1990, contains budgets for completion of work associated with approval
of the Project Study Reports for the Rancho California Road and Winchester Road
Interchanges under Schedule "B" and the completion of the Project Reports and the plans,
specifications and estimates under Schedule "C." The work effort under Schedule "C"
assumed that Caltrans would require both bridges be widened to accommodate the new loop
on ramps. Due to this assumption, Schedule "C" was approved only for budgeting purposes
with the caveat that the budgets would be re-evaluated after completion of Schedule "B" and
brought back to the Council for authorization to proceed.
The consultant and the staff have re-evaluated the budgets and concluded that the projects,
including the additional effort associated with the Overland Overcrossing, can be completed
in accordance:with the original contract. The proposed budget for each project under
Schedule "C" is:
A. Winchester Road = $ 512,615.00
B. :Rancho California Road = $443.700.00
Total $ 956,315.00
It should be noted that these budgets were based on the coneultant's FY 90-91 Billing Rates
and no adjustment to FY 92-93 has been requested.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds have been reserved for completion of all the design work through the sale of bonds for
Community Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez Corridor). There is no increase in funding above the
amounts specified in the December 18, 1990 contract.
-2- pwO2%egdrpt~92%O623'~CFD88-12.AGR 061692
ITEM NO.
6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
June 23, 1992
Contract Amendment No. 2 to Community Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez
Corridor) Engineering Services Contract with J.F. Davidson Associates,
Inc.
PREPARED BY:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City! Council:
Approve Cont~ract Amendment No. 2 with J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. to provide additional
engineering services in the amount of $53,434.
BACKGROUND:
With the completion of the bond sale that will fund the construction of Ynez Road
improvements within the boundaries of Community Facilities District 88-12, it is now
appropriate tO consider several additional items that will enable the construction plans,
specificationS, and estimates to be finalized and allow the project to proceed to the public
bidding process. The additional costs detailed in the following section were arrived at during
the design coordination process with several of the property owners within the District, utility
companies serving the District, and the landscape consultant:
Auto Dealer Site Improvements: The construction of Ynez Road will require an
additional 17 feet of right-of-way from the existing auto dealers on the west side of
Ynez Road causing the display areas to be relocated and significantly affecting the
interior parking lot lay-outs. The City attorney has made a determination that the
additional design and construction costs necessary to satisfactorily replace those
improvements that will be destroyed or harmed during the construction of Ynez Road
are eliliible for reimbursement through CFD 88-12.
-1- pw02~egdrpt~92\0623~CFD88-12.AMD 061692
Ae
e~rpe~aration of Additional Plan,
cifications end Estimate for
On-Site Replacement Rans
Auto Dealer
e9,500.00
II.
III.
IV.
Storm Drain System: During the course of deigning the roadway, there were projects
in the City's plan check process that were going to construct major drainage facilities
across Ynez Road prior to the CFD 88-12 improvements to Ynez Road. Unfortunately,
the developers associated with these projects have informed the City that due to the
current economic situation, the projects are now dormant and there is no projected
date for construction. As these private projects diverted water around sites to
maximize the amount of usable property for private development, they are beyond the
scope of the CFD 88-12 improvements. However, the non-installation of these
facilities will necessitate revisions to the existing street plans, storm drain plans,
hydraulic calculations, and associated specifications and estimates. Additionally, J.F.
Davidson conducted an investigation to determine if it was feasible to extend the
existing 78" drainage pipe located within Solana Way under Ynez Road with this bond
sale. The study revealed that the additional installation was not feasible without major
improvements to private property upstream and downstream, and could not be funded
within the proposed bond sale.
A. Revisions to Rans, Specifications and Estimate $15,000.00
B. Solana Way Investigation (completed) $1,634.00
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) 48" Watedine: The construction of the
RCWD 48" waterline within Ynez Road, from Winchester Road through the intersection
of Ynaz Road and Rancho California Road, has necessitated a significant amount of
coordination between the two agencies and their respective consultants to ensure that
both projects will be completed in a timely and. cost efficient manner. During the
construction of the waterline there are certain adjustments (valves to grade, etc.) that
would be more readily addressed after the completion of the roadwork. Rancho
California Water District has conceptually agreed to the responsibility for those
additional water-related adjustments that could be made by the City's contractor
during the completion of the roadwork. However, this arrangement will require that
the existing road plans and specifications clearly indicate the waterline improvements
to all prospective roadway contractors. The modifications to the road plans will also
be reflected in a separate bid schedule identifying those construction items associated
with Rancho California Water District's improvements.
As
Revisions to Plans, Specifications, and
Estimates; and Assistance with Reimbursement
Agreement Specification
$13,500.00
Eastern :Munioipal Water District Sewer (EMWD): After the submittal of the design
plans for the sewer line adjacent to the east side of I-15 behind Toyota of Temecula
and AdVanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., EMWD determined that due to the
anticipated maintenance problems they no longer wished to pursue construction of a
sewer line along this alignment. J.F. Davidson and Associates, Inc. worked with
EMWD to develop an alternative alignment that reduced the anticipated construction
-2- pw02%agdrpt~2~0623%CFD88-12.AMD 061 692
Ve
VI.
VII.
costs from $414,480 to $246,000. To avoid any additional delay, EMWD will prepare
the final plans and specifications for inclusion in the City's bid document.
A. Additional Alignment Studies (completed)
$2,000.00
Southem California Edison Street Ught Reddons: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc., as
part of ~heir design services, prepared a street light plan in accordance with the policies
of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and the City for SCE's use in
designing the necessary facilities. As SCE proceeded with their design, it was
determined that the proposed street light luminaries could be installed on the relocated
power poles thus minimizing the aesthetic impact of a two pole system. Since the
original street light lay-out is shown on the design drawings, it will be necessary to
remove it along with the corresponding construction notes. SCE's plans would then
be included in the bid package for actual installation of the street light system. The
minor cost associated with the plan revisions are far outweighed by the aesthetic
qualities associated with fewer poles.
Revised Street Light Lay-Out and Plan Revisions to
Remove Street Lights from City Plans
$2,800.00
LandsCape and Irrigation Coordination: With the selection of a separate landscape
consultant, there is a need to coordinate the infrastructure improvements (irrigation
meters, retaining wall treatment, etc.) with the landscape consultant.
A. Additional Meetings and Minor Plan Modifications $2,000.00
Ynez Road Cost Spread: J.F. Davidson has proposed a Scope of Work, included as
Attachment "A," to prepare a cost spread in conformance with the Sales Tax
Agreement and the final construction plans. J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. has the
personnel and resources to complete this task in a cost effective manner.
A. Attachment "A" $7,000.00
Total of Items I - 7
$ 53,434.00
FISCAL IMPACT:
All of the above costs are eligible for funding through Community Facilities District 88-12.
Adequate funds have been reserved within budget of the District. The total cost of this
element of the project is summarized below:
A. Original Contract (Approved 12-18-90) $431,275.00
B. Amendment No. 1 (Approved 8-27-91) $56,100.00
C. Proposed Amendment No. 2 $53.434.00
Total $ 540,809.00
Attachment
-,1- pwO2%egdfpt%92%O623',CFD88-12.AMD 061692
ATTACHMENT "A"
s
®
YNEZ ROAD COST SPREAD
SALES TAX AGREEMENT
SCOPE OF WORK
Collect the latest County assessor information regarding parcels and
property owners adjacent to Ynez Road and a portion of Solana Way.
Prepare and exhibit showing those parcels and property owners for
reference by City staff at a suitable scale.
Determine the estimated construction costs for the improvements
identified in Section 12 and associate them on a parcel by parcel basis.
These costs would be cross referenced to the map prepared in Item 2.
Create a spreadsheet that would itemize each assessor number, property
owner, frontage length on Ynez and/or Solana Way, estimated
construction costs and actual construction costs as defined in Section 12
of the Sales Tax Agreement.
Provide a detailed parcel by parcel construction cost breakdown
showing construction items, estimated quantities, unit costs and total
consu'uction costs.
Coordinate the results of the cost breakdowns with City staff and the
affected property owners.
Upon receipt of construction bids, revise the estimated spread to reflect
actual bid values.
ITEM NO. 7
.E
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
June 23, 1992
Contract Change Order No. 001 on Project No. PW92-01 Street and
Sidewalk Improvements at Various Schools
PREPARED BY:-~)ouglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDLATION:
That the City iCouncil:
A. Approve Contract Change Order No. 001 consisting of the following:
1. Increase in contract amount due to removal of 6 additional trees.
$1,260.00.
2.
e
Irlcrease --
Increase in contract amount due to relocation of water line test station.
Increase -- $525.00.
Increase in contract amount due to removal of unsuitable (alligatored) existing
pavement. Increase = $487.20.
Increase in contract amount due to removal of rip rap. Increase -- $787.50.
Increase in contract amount due to construction of two (2) concrete storm drain
collars. Increase = $874.00.
Increase in contract amount due to removal of grouted rip rap. Increase =
$2,000.00.
Increase in contract amount due to installation of 40 L.F. at 4" P.V.C. sleeve.
Increase = $600.00.
'Increase in contract amount due to PoV.C. rail fence border. Increase = $2,710.80.
Page I of 4 pwOl%agdrpt\92\O623%pw92-01.cco 0612a
9. increase ~n contract amount due to unforeseen utility delays. Increase =
S 12,500.00.
10. Ilncrease ~n contract amount due to construction of 1/4 ton rip rap dissipator.
Increase = $3,668.00.
11. Increase ~n contract amount due to installation of swimming pool drain.
Increase = $4,995.00
12. increase ~n contract amount due to retocation of compound meter and check
valve assembly. Increase $3,750.00.
13. Increase ~n contract amount due to relocation of water meter and elimination
of double-check valve. Increase -- $2,812.00.
14. Increase ~n contract amount due to realignment of 36" R.C.P. Increase -
~1,875.00.
15. Decrease in contract amount due to deletion of relocation of various street
Signs. Decrease - $1,303.00.
16. Decrease in contract amount due to deletion of relocation of two (2) water
meters. Decrease = $630.00.
B. Transfer $20,322.41 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and
appropriate $20,322.41 to Account No. 021-165-607-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund
Balance.
BACKGROUND:
The construction contract for Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various Schools (Project
No. PW92-01) was awarded on March 24, 1992 to Inland Asphalt and Coatings for
$193,479.95 ($175,890.86 plus a 10% contingency of $17,589.09).
Contract Chanae Order No. 001 consists of:
CCO-001-A1 Removal of additional trees. The original bid package indicated removal of
5 trees, field verification indicated total of 11 trees for removal. Increase =
$1,260.00
CCO-O01-A2 Relocation of water line test station. The test station was not shown or
otherwise indicated on the plans or specifications. Increase -- $525.00.
CCO-O01-A3 Saw-cut, remove and join existing pavement. After commencing
construction, removal of additional pavement was necessary to eliminate
alligatored pavement areas. Increase = $487.20
CCO-001-A4 Removal of rio rao. The original bid package indicated removal of 25 C.Y. of
rip rap. Field measurement verified 100 C.Y. of rip rap; increase 75 C.Y. of
rip rap removal. Increase = $787.50
Pegs 2 of 4 pwO1%agdrpt\92%O623%pw92-01 .eeo 0612a
CCO-001 -B1
CCO-001 -B2
CCO-001 -B3
CCO-001 -B4
CCO-001 -B5
CCO-001-B6
CCO-001 -B7
CCO-001 -B8
CCO-001 -B9
CCO-001 -B10
Construct two (2) concrete collars for storm drain to expedite the relocation
of Southern California Edison poles during construction. Increase =
$874.00
Removal of arouted rid rap. Removal is necessary to extend 36" storm drain.
Grouted rip rap not shown or otherwise indicated on the plans or
specifications, because it was buried under the ground surface. Increase =
$2,000.00
Install 40 L.F. of 4" P.V.C. to provide future irrigation for Temecula Valley
Unified School District. Increase -- $600.00
Installation of white P.V.C. rail fence border. The border is necessary to
contain playground bedding material. Relocation of the border is not shown
or otherwise indicated on plans and specifications. Increase = $2,710.80
Delay for relocation of utilities. A ten-day construction delay for utilities
(Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas and General Telephone)
are not shown, or improperly indicated on plans and specifications. Increase
-- $12,500.00
Construct 1/4 ton rid rao dissiDator. Rip rap and dissipator originally
indicated on plans and specifications as Additive bid. The Additive Bid was
not awarded. Increase = $3,668.00
Installation of 65 L.F. of drain line. The drain line was necessary to allow for
proper drainage of swimming pool. Cost to be reimbursed to C.I.P. Account
by Temecula Community Services District. Increase = $4,995.00
Relocation of one (1) COmpound meter and check valve assembly oer Rancho
California Water District. The plans and specifications originally indicated as
relocation of water meter. Increase = $3,750.00
Relocation of one (1) water meter and eliminate double-check valve per
Rancho California Water District. The plans and specifications originally
indicated as relocation of water meter. Increase = $3,812.00
Realicinincj 36" R.C.P. Alignment was originally staked incorrectly due to
erroneous information on the plans and specifications. The cost shall be paid
by the design engineer. Increase = $1,875.00
A DECREASE IN 'I HE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
CCO-O01 -C1
CCO-001 -C2
CCO-001 -C3
Delete relocation of existing 10" wood sign post. Decrease 3 @ $172.00/ea
= ($516.00).
'Delete relocation of existing wood sign. Decrease 3 @ $157.00/ea
= ($471.00).
Delete relocation of sign and post. Decrease 4 at $52.50/ea -- ($210.00).
Page 3 of 4 pwOl\egdrpt~S2~O623~ow92-O1 .coo 0612a
CCO-O01-C4i
CCO-O01 -C5 .
CCO-001-C6
Delete relocation at SR4-1 and post. Decrease 1 at 953.00/ea = (953.00).
Delete relocation of W41 and post. Decrease 1 @ 953.00/ea. = (953.00).
Delete relocation of two (2) water meters. Meters improperly indicated on
plans and specifications, shall be relocated in Items CCO-001-B8 and CCO-
001-B9. Decrease = (9630.00).
FISCAL IMPACT:
On March 24, ~ 992 the City Council approved the appropriation of 9175,890.86, plus a 10%
contingency in the amount of 9.17,589.09, for a total of 9193,479.95. Therefore, an
additional appropriation of 920,322.41 above the 10% contingency is required at this time
to Capital Project Account No. 021-165-607-44-5804..
Attachment:
1. Contract Change Order No. 001
Page 4 of 4 pwO1\egdrpt\92\O623%pw92-01 .coo 0612a
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
June 12, 1992
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~l~M~'chael D. Wolff, Project Inspector
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT NO; PW 92-01
CCO NO: 001
DECREASE: ($1.933.00|
SIDEWALK & STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS
CONTRACT: PW92-01
INCREASE:
$39,843.50
THIS CHANGE PROVIDES FOR:
An INCREASE; in the following items:
1. Removal of additional trees. The original bid package indicated removal of 5 trees,
field verification indicated total of 11 trees for removal.
Relocltion of water line test station. The test station was not shown or otherwise
indicated on the plans or specifications.
Saw-;ut, remove and join existinq pavement. After commencing construction,
removal of additional pavement was necessary to eliminate alligatored pavement
areas~
verified 100 C.Y. of rip rap; increase 75 C.Y. of rip rap removal.
Consl~ruct two (2) concrete collars for storm drain to expedite the relocation of
Southern California Edison poles during construction.
Removal of cJrouted rid rap. Removal is necessary to extend 36" storm drain.
Grouted rip rap not shown or otherwise indicated on the plans or specifications,
because it was buried under the ground surface.
Install 40 L.F. of 4" P.V.C. to provide future irrigation for Temecula Valley Unified
SchoOl District.
Installation of white P.V.C. rail fence border. The border is necessary to contain
playground bedding material. Relocation of the border is not shown or otherwise
indicated on plans and specifications.
pwOl%pw92-01~cco~OO1 O61~1a
Memorsndum to Tim D. Serlet
Re: CCO No. O01 on Project PW92-O 1
Page 2
e
Delay for relocation of utilities. A ten-day construction delay for utilities (Southern
California Edison, Southern California Gas and General Telephone) are not shown, or
improperly indicated on plans and specifications.
10.
Constrgct 1/4 ton rio rao disaioator. Rip rap and dissipator originally indicated on
plans and specifications as Additive bid. The Additive Bid was not awarded.
11.
Installation of 65 L.F. of drain line. The drain line was necessary to allow for proper
drainage of swimming pool. Cost to be reimbursed to C.I.P. Account by Temecula
Community Services District.
12.
Relocaltion of one (1) comoound meter and check valve assembly oer Rancho
California Water District. The plans and specifications originally indicated as
relocation of water meter.
13.
Relocition of one (1) water meter and elimipate double-check valve oer Rancho
California Water District. The plans and specifications originally indicated as
relocation of water meter.
14.
RealiqninQ 36" R.C.P. Alignment was originally staked incorrectly due to erroneous
information on the plans and specifications. The cost shall be paid by the design
engineer.
A DECREASE ain the following items:
1. Delete relocation of various street name siqns. · Signs previously relocated by City
Staff.
Delete relocation of two (2) water meters. Meters improperly indicated on plans and
specifications, shall be relocated in Items CCO-001-B8 and CCO-001-B9L
CCO DISCUSSED WITH:
1. City Engr:'
2. Deputy City Engr:
3. Other:
Prior Appr. By: Date:
ESTIMATE OF COST
items:
Force Acct:
Adjustments:
Agreed Price:
+ $3,059.70
-$1,933.00
+ $36,784.80
TOTAL:
+ $37,911.50
pwO1~ow92-01\cco%001 061~e
1989
PROJECT: ,
TO CONTRACTOR:
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 001
CONTRACT NO. PW 92-01
SIDEWALK & STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS
INLAND ASPHALT & COATING
NOTE: This chanQe order is not effective until aDoroved by the EnQineer.
CHANGE REQUESTED BY: Project Inspector
A. INCREASE IN CONTRACT QUANTITIES AT CONTRACT UNIT PRICES:
2.
3.
4.
Remove additional trees as directed in field by Engineer. Increase 6 trees
@ $210.00/ea. = $1,260.00
Relocate water line test station as directed in field by Engineer. Increase I test
station @ $525.00/ea. = $525.00
Increase in saw-cut, remove and join existing pavement as directed in field by
Engineer. Increase 840 S.F. @ $0.58/S.F. = $487.20
Remove additional rip rap as directed in field by Engineer· Increase 75 C.Y. @
$10.50/C.Y. = $787.50
CCO-001 -A1,
CCO-001 -A2,
CCO-001 -A3i
CCO-001 -A4,
Item T-21, 6 trees @ $210.00/ea = .................. 81,260.00
Item T-23, I test sta. @ $525.00/ea = .................. $525.00
Item T-9, Saw-cut & remove 840 S.F. @ $0.58/sf -- ........ $487.20
Item T-11, Remove rip rap, 75 C.Y. @ $10.50/C.Y.= ........ $787.50
ESTIMATE OF INCREASE AT CONTRACT UNIT PRICE: ................ $3,059.70
INCRE~ASE IN QUANTITIES AT AGREED PRICES:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Add two concrete collars, form storm drain in field by Engineer. Increase 2 @
$437.00/ea. = $874.00
Remove 200 S.F. at grouted rip rap as directed in field by Engineer. Increase
200 S.F. @ $2,000.00
Install 40 L.F. of 4" P.V.C. sleeve under driveway at Temecula Elementary
School. Increase 40 L.F. of P.V.C. sleeve @ $600.00
Furnish and install white P.V.C. rail fence border and 5"x5" P.V.C. posts and
caps as directed by Engineer in field. Increase 120 L.F. @ $2,710.80
Delay for relocation of unidentified utilities. Increase $1,250.00/day for 10
days = $12,500.00
pw01\pw92-01~cco\O01 0612~
4:5174 BLISINES5 PAI~K DI~I~'E · TE~tECULA. CALIFORNIA 952590 · PHONE (714) 694-1989 · FAX (714) 694-1999
Sheet _2_2 of
6. Construct 1/4 ton rip rap dissipator with filter fabric - 28 C.Y. Increase 28 C.Y.
'@ 8131.00/C.Y. -- 83,668.00
7. Install 65 L.F. drain from swimming pool to catch basin as directed in field by
'Engineer. Increase 65 L.F. drain @ $4,995.00 = $4,995.00.
8. Relocate one (1) compound meter and check valve assembly per Rancho
California Water District. Increase I @ $3,750.00 -- $3,750.00.
9. Relocate one (1) meter and eliminate double check valve. Increase
~1 @ $2,812.00 -- $2,812.00.
10. Realigning 36" R.C.P. as directed in field by Engineer. Increase I @
81,875.00.
CCO-001 -B1,
CCO-001 -B2,~
CCO-O01 -B3,.
CCO-O01 -B4,
CCO-001 -B5,
CCO-001 -B6,!
CCO-001 -B7,
CCO-O01 -BB;
CCO-001
CCO-001
Add 2 concrete collars - storm drain, 2 @ $437.00/ea -- ...... 8874.00
Remove grouted rip rap, 240 S.F. @ ................... 82,000.00
Install 40 L.F. of 4" P.V.C. sleeve, 40 L.F. @ .............. 8600.00
Furnish and install P.V.C. Tail fence, 120 L.F. @ ........... 82,710.80
Delay for relocation of utilities for 10 days @ ............ $12,500.00
Construct 1/4 ton rip rap,-28 C.Y. @ ................... $3,668.00
Install swimming pool drain line, 65 L.F. @ .............. $4,995.00
Relocate one compound meter and check valve @ ......... 83,750.00
-B9, Relocate one meter and eliminate double check valve @ ...... $3,812.00
-B10, Realigning 36" R.C.P. @ .......................... $1,875.00
ESTIMATE OF INCREASE AT AGREED PRICE: ...................... 836,784.80
C. DECREASE IN CONTRACT QUANTITIES AT CONTRACT UNIT PRICES:
e
4.
5.
6.
Delete relocation of existing 10" wood sign post. Decrease 3 @ 8172.00/ea
= $516.00.
Delete relocation of existing wood sign. Decrease 3 @ 8157.00/ea
= $471.00.
Delete relocation of sign and post. Decrease 4 @ $52.50/ea = $210.00.
Delete relocation at SR4-1 and post. Decrease 1 @ $53.00/ea = 853.00.
Delete relocation of W41 and post. Decrease 1 @ 853.00/ea = $53.00.
Delete relocation of 2 water meters. Decrease 2 @ 8315.00/ea = 8630.00.
CCO-001 -C1,
CCO-001 -C2i
CCO-001 -C3;,
CCO-001 -C4!,
CCO-001 -C5,
CCO-001 -C6,
Delete Item #R-4, relocate wood sign & post, 3 @ 8172.00/ea = 8516.00
Delete Item #V-7, relocate existing sign & post,3 @ 8157.00/ea= $471.00
Delete Item #T-22, relocate sign and post, 4 @ $52.50/ea = .. 8210.00
Delete Item #T-39, relocate SR4-1 and post, 1 @ $53.00/ea = .. 853.00
Delete Item #T-40, relocate W41 and post, I @ $53.00/ea = . .. $53.00
Delete Item #T-10, relocate water meters 2 @ 8315.00/ea = .. $630.00
ESTIMATE OF DECREASE AT CONTRACT UNIT PRICE: ................ 81,933.00
pwO1~w92-01\cco%001 061~a
Contract Chan e Order No. O01
PW92-01 SID~II~LK & STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS
Sheet _3.. of
By reason of this Order, the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: 15 DAYS DELAY
Submitted: Project Inspector By: ~~--~a/~ Date: ~//~-~/,~ z
Approved: Deputy City Engr. By: Date:
We the undersigned contractor have given careful consideration to the change proposed and
hereby agree:. If this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all
materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all servi necessary for
. . /
By: _ ~ ~c~~Z ~ Title: ~ · Y~
If the contractor does not sign acceptance of this order, his attention is directed to the
requirements of the specifications as to proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written
protest within the time therein specified.
pw01 \pw92-01 \cco\O01 0612a
ITEM NO. 8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
D partment of Public Works
~une 23, 1992 '
Temecula Valley Via Del Coronado Storm Drain Stage 2,
Tr. No. 23267-3 Cooperative Agreement
PREPARED BY:
Kris Winchak
R ECOMMENIDAT ION:
That City Council APPROVE Temecula Valley Via Del Coronado Storm Drain Stage 2,
Tr. No. 23267-3 Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District and the Presley Companies; and authorize the execution
and attestation of such agreement in its final form by the Mayor and City Clerk.
DISCUSSION:
The County of RiversideBoard of Supervisors on October 20, 1988 approved Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. As a condition of developing the subdivision the
developer was required to construct improvements for flood control storm drain
facilities in ,conjunction with the Temecula Creek Channel (Assessment District 159),
that is adjacent to the project site. The required facilities to be constructed include
approximately 1500 lineal feet of underground reinforced concrete pipe, illustrated
in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B".
Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement. the developer will construct said facilities,
and the County Flood Control District will assume ownership and maintenance
responsibility of mainline storm drain improvements. In conjunction with the
cooperative agreement, the County Flood Control District will review and approve
all construction plans associated with the improvements. Participation of the City
includes the acceptance and holding of Faithful Performance and Labor and Material
bonds for the storm drain improvements, granting of rights to the County to operate
and maintain flood control facilities within City right-d-way, and City operation and
maintenance of inlets/connector pipes within City right-d-way.
1
Following City Council adoption of the Cooperative Agreement, it will be sent to the
County Flood Control District for their approval and for County of Riverside Board
of Supervisors approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Flood Control Improvements (Exhibits "A" 8 "B")
3, Cooperative Agreement
IOW/AC e
Agendas/Tr. 23267-3 Storm Drain
i
i
I
I
I
I'
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
*~ 2-J
THE MEADOWS -"
S~ 2,~? .. '
//
VA
t
./
'i
HAWk
SP ~17
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT E
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2~
AGREEMENT
(Tract No. 23267-3 and Tract No. 23267-Final) ,
The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the CITY OF
TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and THE PRESLEY COMPANIES,
a California corporation, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", hereby!
agree as follows:
RECITALS
A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract No.
23267-3 in the City of Temecula, and as a condition for approval
DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in
order to provide flood protection for DEVELOPER'S planned
development; and
B. The required facilities include two separate
underground concrete pipe facilities,.hereinafter called
"PROJECT", as shown in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof; and
C. DEVELOPER desires DISTRICT to assume ownership and
respOnsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and
specifications and subsequently inspect the construction of
PROJECT; and
D. DISTRICT is willing to review and approve plans and
specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, and is willing
to inspect the construction of PROJECT; and
E. DISTRICT is willing to assume ownership and
- 1 -
1
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24 ~
25
26
27
28
responsibility for the opera=ion and maintenance of PROJECT,
excluding all PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY
rights of way, provided (i) DEVELOPER complies with this
agreement, (ii) DEVELOPER pays DISTRICT the amount as specified
herein to cover DISTRICT'S construction inspection costs for
PROJECT, (iii) DEVELOPER pays DISTRICT the amount as specified
herein to cover DISTRICT'S operation and maintenance costs for
PROJECT, (iv) PROJECT is constructed in accordance with plans and
specifications approved by DISTRICT, and (v) DEVELOPER obtains
and conveys to DISTRICT all rights of way necessary for the
operation and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein; and
= F. CITY is willing (i) to accept and hold faithful
performance and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER for PROJECT,
(ii)!to grant DISTRICT the right to operate and maintain PROJECT
within CITY rights of way, and (iii) to accept responsibility for
the Operation and maintenance of all PROJECT inlets and connector
pipes within CITY rights of way, provided PROJECT is'constructed
in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT
and CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as
follows:
SECTION I
DEVELOPER shall:
1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in
accordance with DISTRICT standards, and submit the plans and
specifications to DISTRICT for its review and approval.
- 2 -
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
2. Pay DISTRICT, for DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the
plan review and approval of PROJECT,.the applicable amount(s) z~
provi!ded.for under Ordinance No. 460 relating to fees for flood
control improvements to be operated and maintained by DISTRICT, =
as determined and approved by DISTRICT.'
3. Pay DISTRICT, upon execution of this agreement (Zon~
7 Maintenance Trust Fund No. 732-64-950-3211), the one time cashl
sum af $16,000.00, the agreed upon DISTRICT estimated cost for
operation and maintenance of PROJECT through the year 1998.
4. Pay DISTRICT, upon execution of this agreement, the
one time cash sum of $1-,500.00, the agreed upon amount necessary~
to cover DISTRICT'S costs incurred in the preparation, processing
and administration of this agreement.
5. Pay DISTRICT for the cost of providing construction
inspection for PROJECT, at the time of providing written ~
notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set
forth in Section I.S. herein, or prior to recordation of the
final map for Tract No. 23267-3, whichever occurs first, in an
amount as determined and approved by DISTRICT as being equal to
three (3) percent of the estimated cost of construction of
PROJECT facilities to be inspected, operated and maintained by.
DISTRICT.
6. Secure all necessary licenses, agreements, permits
and rights of entry as may be needed for the construction,
inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT. DEVELOPER
shall furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written
- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set
forth in Section I.S. herein, or not less than twenty (20) days
prior to recordation of the final map for Tract N0. 23267-3,
whichever occurs first, with sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER
having secured such necessary licenses, agreements, permits and
rights of entry, as determined and approved by DISTRICT.
7. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written
notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set
forth in Section 1.8. herein, or prior to recordation of the
final map for Tract No. 23267-3, whichever occurs first, with
faithful performance and payment bonds, each in the amount of
100% of the estimated cost for construction of PROJECT as
determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of the bonds
shall be subject to the approval of DISTRICT and CITY. The bonds
shall remain in full force and effect until PROJECT is accepted
by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the bond amount may be
reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any
defective work, labor or materials.
8. Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention - Michael D.
Rawson), at least twenty (20) days prior to the start of
construction of PROJECT. Construction shall not begin on any
element of PROJECT, for any reason whatsoever, until after
DISTRICT has issued to DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed
authorizing DEVELOPER to initiate construction.
9. Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at
DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense in accordance with plans and
- 4 -
4
5
6
8
10
11
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
specifications approved by DISTRICT.
10. Furnish DISTRICT, at time of providing written
notification to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set
forth in section 1.8., with a complete list of all contractors
and Subcontractors to be performing work on PROJECT, including
the corresponding license number and license classification of
each. At such time, DEVELOPER shall further identify in writing!,
its designated superintendent for PROJECT construction.
11. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, and upon
acceptance of all "on-site" street rights of way by CITY as
deemed necessary by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and
maintenance of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT acceptance of
PROJECT for operation and maintenance, convey or cause to be
conveyed to DISTRICT, flood control easement(s), including
ingress and egress, in a form approved by DISTRICT, for the
rights of way as shown in concept cross-hatched in blue on
Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
12. At the time of recordation of the conveyancing
document(s) set forth in Section 1.11., furnish DISTRICT with
policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for each parcel to be
conveyed to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said
property as being free and clear of all liens, encumbrances,
assessments, easements, taxes and leases, and except those which,
in ~he sole discretion of DISTRICT, are acceptable.
13. Pay, if suit is brought upon this contract or any
- 5 -
1
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
24
25
26
27
28
bond guaranteeing the completion of PROJECT, all costs and
reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys'
fees,~and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such
costs, expenses and fees shall be taxed as costs and included in
any judgment rendered-
: 14. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for
PROJECT and assign their ownership to DISTRICT.
SECTION II
DISTRICTshall:
1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared
by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, prior to the start of construction.
: 2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design
plans prior
to DISTRICT final approval.
Upon execution of this agreement, record or cause
be recorded, a copy of this agreement in the Official Records of
the Riverside County Recorder.
4. Inspect the construction of PROJECT.
5. Accept ownership and responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding inlets'and
connector pipes within CITY street rights of way, upon (i)
DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT construction as being complete,
(ii)]acceptance by CITY of all "on-site" street rights of way as
deemed necessary by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and
maintenance of PROJECT, and (iii) recordation of the conveyancing
documents described in Section 1.11.
- 6 -
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. Furnish CITY with duplicate mylar "as-built" plans
for all PROJECT facilities constructed within CITY rights of w~
uponeDISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete.
SECTION III
CITY shall:
' 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepare~
by DEVELOPER for those portions of PROJECT within CITY rights ofi
way, prior to the start of construction of PROJECT.
2. Accept the CITY and DISTRICT approved faithful
performance and payments bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set
forth in Section 1.7., and hold said bonds as provided herein.
3. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this agreement, the
right to construct, inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT within
CITY rights of way as set forth herein.
4. Accept ownership and responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of all PROJECT inlets and connector
pipes within CITY rights of way, upon DISTRICT acceptance of
PROJECT as being complete.
SECTION IV
It is further mutually agreed:
1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected
DISTRICT and shall not be deemed complete until approved and
accepted as complete by DISTRICT.
2. CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect
all work being done on PROJECT, but shall provide any comments
DISTRICT personnel who shall be responsible for all quality
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cont=ol communications with the contractor during the
construction of PROJECT.
= 3. Construction of PROJECT shall be completed by
DEVELOPER (i) within twelve (12) consecutive months after
execution of this agreement, and (ii) within thirty (30)
consecutive calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT,
subject to the provisions of Section IV.4. herein. It is
expressly understood that since time is of the essence in this
agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the
agreed upon time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to
perform the remaining work and require DEVELOPER'S surety to pay
to CiTY the penal sum of-any and all bonds. In which case, CITY
shall subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs
incurred.
4. In order to efficiently coordinate the construction
of PROJECT with that of the proposed Temecula Creek Channel,
which is to be constructed by others, it is anticipated that
DEVELOPER may not be able to complete certain downstream portions
of PROJECT until after the corresponding reach of said proposed
TemeCula Creek Channel is constructed. In such event, DEVELOPER
may necessarily construct temporary outlet works and functioning
unlined outlet channels, as approved by DISTRICT. DEVELOPER
nevertheless shall retain sole ownership and responsibility for
the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, including said
temporary outlet facilities, until such time that PROJECT is
fully complete and accepted as complete by DISTRICT. It is
- 8 -
1
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
further mutually understood by the parties hereto, that prior
DISTRICT and CITY acceptance of ownership and responsibility f~-~
the operation and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein,
PROJECT shall be of a satisfactorily maintained condition as
appr~ved in the sole discretion of DISTRICT.
5. DEVELOPER shall not request, nor shall CITY issue,
for any reason whatsoever, building permits for any lot within
Tract No. 23267-3 or any lot within Tract No. 23267-Final, until~
such time as a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from
FEMA is received by CITY for the proposed Temecula Creek Channel~
unless otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT. Further,
DEVELOPER shall not request, nor shall CITY issue, for any reason
whatsoever, any occupancy permit for any unit within Tract No.
14
23267-3 or Tract No. 23267-Final until after construction of
15I Temecula Creek Channel and PROJECT is accepted as complete by
16 DISTRICT, unless otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT.
17
18
19
20
21
6. DEVELOPER, as a condition for approval of an
adjacent upstream development project, has constructed a certain
underground storm drain facility, onto which one of PROJECT storm
drain facilities must connect. In an effort to simplify the
delineation of future DISTRICT and CITY maintenance
22 responsibilities for this connecting and "continuous" facility,
~i the parties hereto desire that DISTRICT accept as part of
' PROJECT, ownership and responsibility for the operation and
25
maintenance of the specific segment of said existing storm drain
26!
:l~ as shown in blue on Exhibit "A". Accordingly, DEVELOPER hereby
28 H - 9 -
1
2
5
9~
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
agrees to perform any and all such work on said segment necessary
to ensure that the facility is complete in accordance with
DISTRiCT.standards, as determined by DISTRICT, and further agrees=
to cover the costs of any compliance testing deemed necessary by
DISTRICT, if any, including, but not limited to, soil compaction
tests.
7. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily,
waive the provisions of GoVernment Code Section 65913.8, relating
to fe~s and charges. Such waiver is accomplished with the
understanding that DISTRICT is voluntarily undertaking the
obligation to accept ownership and responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and DEVELOPER is not
required by DISTRICT to enter into this agreement.
8. DISTRICT shall assume no responsibility whatsoever,
for any surface drainage within the rights of way as shown in.
concept cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit "B".
9. DEVELOPER shall during the construction period
provide Workers' Compensation Insurance in an amount required by~
law.. A Certificate of said insurance policy shall be provided t0
DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice
pursuant to Section 1.8.
10. DEVELOPER shall, commencing on the date notice is
given pursuant to Section 1.8., and continuing until DISTRICT
accepts PROJECT for operation and maintenance:
(a) Provide and maintain comprehensive liability
insurance coverage which shall protect
- 10 -
1
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b)
DEVELOPER from claim from damages for personal
injury, including accidental and wrongful '~
death, as well as from claims for property
damage which may arise from DEVELOPER'S
construction of PROJECT or the performance of
its obligations hereunder, whether such
construction or performance be by DEVELOPER, by
any contractor, subcontractor, or'by anyone
employed directly or indirectly by any of them,
Such insurance shall name DISTRICT, CITY and
the County of Riverside ("COUNTY") as
additional insureds with respect to this
agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER
hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for
limits of not less than two million dollars
($2,000,000.00) per occurrence.
Cause its insurance carrier(s) to furnish
DISTRICT and CITY, at the time of providing
written notification to DISTRICT of the start
of construction as set forth in Section 1.8.,
with certificate(s) of insurance showing that
such insurance is in full force and effect and
that DISTRICT, CITY and COUNTY are named as
additional insureds with respect to this
agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER
hereunder. Further, said certificate(s) shall
- 11 -
1
2
4
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provide that the issuing company shall give
DISTRICT and CITY sixty (60) days written
notice in the event of any cancellation,
termination, non-renewal or reduction in
coverage of the policies evidenced by the
certificate(s). In the event of any such
cancellation, termination, non-renewal or
reduction in coverage, DEVELOPER shall,
.forthwith, secure replacement insurance meeting
the provision of this paragraph,
Failure to maintain the insurance required by this
paragraph shall be deemed a material breach of this agreement and
shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, at its
sole discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work
pursuant to Section IV.3.
! 11. In the event that any claim or legal action is
brought against DISTRICT, CITY or COUNTY in connection with this
agreement because of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by
DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT,
CITY~ and COUNTY harmless therefrom, without cost to DISTRICT,
CITY! or COUNTY. Upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT,
CITY' and COUNTY shall be entitled to recover from DEVELOPER all
of ~heir cost and expenses, including, but not limited to,
reasonable attorneys' fees.
12. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT,
CIT~ and COUNTY, their respective officers, agents, employees and
- 12 -
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or lega!
action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, ~
SectiSon 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance
which seeks to impose any other liability or damage whatsoever,
for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT or from the
diversion of the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save
and except claims and litigation arising through the sole
negligence or sole willful misconduct of DISTRICT, CITY or
COUNTY- DEVELOPER shall defend DISTRICT, CITY and COUNTY without
cost to DISTRICT, CITY or COUNTY, and upon DEVELOPER'S failure t0
do so, DISTRICT, CITY and COUNTY shall be entitled to recover
from.DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenditures, including, bu~
not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees.
13. DEVELOPER for itself, its successors and assigns
hereby releases DISTRICT, CITY and COUNTY, their respective
officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands!,
actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, know~
or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, an~
claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I,
Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance
which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever,
for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT, or the
discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT. Nothing contained
herein shall constitute a release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT or
- 13 -
1
CITY, their officers, agents and employees from any and all
claims, demands, actions or suits of any kind arising out of any
liability, known or unknown, present or future, for the negligent
4 maintenance of PROJECT, after the acceptance of PROJECT by
5
DISTRICT,
6 14. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of
7 any one or more of the terms of .this agreement shall not be
8 construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the
9 same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of
10 DISTRICT or CITY to require exact, full and complete compliance
11 with any term of this agreement shall not be construed as in any
12 manner changing the terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY
13
from enforcement hereof.
14 15. If any provision in this agreement (with the
15 exception of Section IV.7.) is held by a court of competent
16 jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining
17 provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being
18 impaired or invalidated in any way. Should it be held by a court
19 of competent jurisdiction that any portion of Section IV.7. is
20 invalid, void or unenforceable, the provisions of Government Code
21
65913.8(b) shall apply. It shall, therefore, be determined that
thisifee is extended through the year 1998.
23 16. This agreement is to be construed in accordance with
24
the laws of the State of California,
17. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to
26 the parties of this agreement will be mailed by first class mail,
28
- 14 -
1
2
postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
RIVERSIDE' COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
RiverSide, CA 92502-1033
THE PRESLEY COMPANIES
150901Avenue of Science, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92128
CITY OF TEMECULA
Post Office Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92590
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the
parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights
provided for by the agreement, shall be tried in a court of
competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of
California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law
providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other
county.
19. This agreement is the result of negotiations betwe
the p~rties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their
e~ i've
resp c 1 counsel. The fact that this agreement was prepared aS
a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or
signi~ficance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this agreement
shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared
this :agreement in its final form.
20. The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure
to and be binding upon all heirs, successors and assignees.
21. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any
of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or
entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
being first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or
assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and agrees that it
shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the
obligations and duties contained in this agreement.
22. This agreement is intended by the parties hereto as
a final expression of ~heir understanding with respect to the
subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement
of the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all
prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or
written, in connection therewith. This agreement may be changed
or modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto.
//
//
- 16 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this agreement on ·
(to be filled in by.Clerk of the Board)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: 3LND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
ChiefsEngineer
By
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN
County Counsel
DepUty
Dated. ,~/,~' [~ 7_
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
CITY OF TEMECULA
City Engineer
By
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY~e~~tor~e/~''~
JMB:MDR:seb
agrmt678
04/21/92
ATTEST:
THE PRESLEY COMPANIES,
Tii~. VICE PleR~inF, iJ'T-
(NOTARY)
By
Title
( NOTARY )
- 17 -
ITEM NO. 9
City of Temecula
Agenda Report
APPROVAL:
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
June 23, 1992
Development Services Tracking Software Acquisition
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve:
The acquisition of the Sierra Computer Systems, Inc., (Sierra) permit
software package.
2. Approve the budget transfers included on Attachment A.
DISCUSSION:
The City's permit and project tracking needs have substantially grown since July,
1990. This growth has increased the need for an automated tracking system that
links the development services departments together allowing each to track specific
projects during the permit approval process through project completion. This software
will provide that link where tracking is currently performed manually. This software
package will lilnk Development Services Departments with Community Services as well
as Finance and Business License programs.
In order to automate the development tracking process, the Development Services
Departments examined three software packages: Sierra Computer Systems, Inc.,
Northern California Systems, Inc., and CAS, Inc. The following criteria were used to
evaluate the packages:
1. Must run in DOS environment.
2. Should be compatible with Finance and GIS software.
Must provide permit tracking, inspection tracking, code enforcement
t'acking, detail site information, project status, and contractor/developer
c ata base.
Must be an established, proven system.
The only system which met the requirements of the group was Sierra.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary to make the budget transfers for this acquisition included on
Attachment A.
ATTACHMENT A
BUDGET TRANSFERS
TRANSFER FROM:
A/C No.
001-162-999-42-
5250
001-164-999-42-
5402
001-305
019-190-999-44-
5608
.Descrip.
Outside
Services
Routine
Street
Maint.
Unreserved
Fund
=Balance
Vehicles
TRANSFER TO:
Amount A/C No.
$18,548 001-162-999-
44-5606
$12,536 001-163-999-
44-5606
$16,047 001-161-999-
44-5606
$5,012 109-190-999-
44-5606
Descrip.
Computer
Software
Computer
Software
Computer
Software
Computer
Software
Amount
$18,548
$12,536
$16,047
$5,012
ITEM NO. 10
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECU&A
A GENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Manager/City Council
Joe Hreha, Senior Management Analyst
June 23, 1992
SUBJECT:
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RATES AND SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a Resolution implementing new
Solid Waste Management Program Rates and Services.
D~CUS~O~
Staff reached an agreement between the fran6hised and
grandfathered haulers to supply additional alternative
services to commercial customers that will provide more
flexibility to meet their solid waste needs and enhance the
commercial "level playing field" between the franchised and
grandfathered haulers.
Services added to the program include a two cubic yard
refuse bin, four cubic yard recycling bin, expanded rolloff
bins, non-contracted, compacted, and "no charge" services.
One and a half cubic yard refuse bins were grandfathered
due to the franchised hauler not having these bins in their
inventory. Rates for these added services were established
using the City's fixed three cubic yard refuse and recycling
bin and rolloff services. Services and rates not addressed
in this Resolution shall be considered "unauthorized" and
shall not be offered in the City of Temecula. The residential
rates and services are not affected by the attached
commercial, industrial, a~fd construction modifications;
except, that the contracted consumer price index
adjustment, concurrently effective on July 1, 1992, is
reflected in the new Exhibit "D" attached hereto.
FISCAL IMPACT.'
None.
A TTA CHMENTS:
Proposed Resolution 92-__. CR&R's and Waste
Management's acceptance of the proposed Resolution
RESOLLrHON NO.
A' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE SOLID WASTE SERVICES
AND CORRESPONDING RATES APPLICABLE TO
FRANCHISED AND GRANDFATHER!~x} HAULERS FOR THE
COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, RECYCLING,
COMPOSTING, AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND FOR PROVIDING
TEMPORARY BIN/ROLLOFF SERVICES IN ALL
COMM~RCIAL, RESID~L, CONSTRUCTION, AND
INDUSTRIAL AREAS V(ITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
WHEREAS, City Resolution 91-54 grante~l an exclusive solid waste franchise
to CR&R Incorporated, dba Temecula Environmental, and City Resolution 91-100
approved grandfathered hauler solid waste regulations to Waste Management of Inland
Valley. Both of these Resolutions contain an Exhibit "D," Schedule of Rates, that
regulate the services and charges for the collection, transportation, recycling,
composting, and disposal of solid waste and construction debris and for providing
temporary bin/rolloff services in all commercial, residential, construction, and
industrial areas within the City of Temecula.
WHEREAS, pursuant to an agreement reached between the franchised and
grandfathered haulers and the City of Temecula to supply additional alternative solid
waste management services that will provide more flexibility for commercial
customers to meet their solid waste needs and to enhance the commercial "level
playing field" between the franchised and grandfathered haulers, the City Council of
the City of Temecula ("City") hereby amends Exhibit "D, " Schedule of Rates, in City
Resolutions 91-54 and 91-100, as reflected in the new Exhibit "D, " Schedule of
Rates, attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City hereby approves the new rates and services, effective July 1,
1992, as provided in the attached new Exhibit "D," Schedule of Rates, pursuant to
City Resolutions 91-54 and 91-100, charged by CR&R Incorporated, dba Temecula
Environmental, and Waste Management of Inland Valley for the collection,
transportation, recycling, cornposting, and disposal of solid waste and construction
debris and for providing temporary bin/rolloff services in commercial, residential,
construction, and industrial areas within the City of Temecula.
SE(~TION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor and the city clerk
to certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 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 23rd
day of June, 1992 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: X' COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: X COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: X COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
5
Exhibit "D"
Schedule of Rates
Mechanized Single Family Attached Residential Collection, Disposal, Composting,
and Recycling - Grante~ Billing
Monthly Rate: $12.73
Mechanized Single Family Detached Residential Collection, Disposal, Composting,
and Recycling - Parcel Charge
Monthly Rate: $12.73
Mechanized Single Family Attached and Detached Residential Additional Refuse,
Cornposting, and Recycling Container - Grantee Billing
Monthly Per Container Rate:$ 4.13
Single Family Attached and Detached Residential Additional Bulky Item Pickup -
Grantee Billing
Pickup Rate: $ ~i, 17
Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Refuse Monthly Bin Rates
(one 2 cubic yard bin) with following pickups per week:
1 x week $ 54.41 5 x week $272.05
2 x week $108.82 6 x week $326.46
3 x week $163.23 7 x week $380.87
4 x week $217,64
Non-contracted 2 Cubic Yard pickup:
Compact~l 2 Cubic Yard pickup:
$25.00
2.5 X weekly pickup rate
Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential RefuSe Monthly Bin Rates (one 3
cubic yard bin) with following pickups per week:
1 x week $ 64,41 5 x week $322.05
2 x week $128.82 6 x week $386.4t5
3 x week $193.23 7 x week $450.87
4 x week $257.64
Non-contracted 3 Cubic Yard pickup:
Compacted 3 Cubic Yard pickup:
$30.00
2.5 X weekly pickup rate
Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Recycling Monthly Bin Rates (one
3 cubic yard bin) with following pickups per week:
1 x week $ 30.92 5 x week $154.60
2 x week $ 61.84 6 x week $185.52
3 x week $ 92.76 7 x week $216.44
4 x week $123.68
Non-contracted 3 Cubic Yard pickup:
$20.00
Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Refuse Monthly Bin Rates (one 4
cubic yard bin) with following pickups per week:
1 x week $ 74,41 5 x week $372.05
2 x week $148.82 6 x week $446.46
3 x week $223.23 7 x week $520.87
4 x week $297,64
Non-contracted 4 Cubic Yard pickup:
Compacted 4 Cubic Yard pickup:
$35.00
2.5 X weekly pickup rate
Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Recycling Monthly Bin Rates (one
4 cubic yard bin) with following pickups per week:
1 x week $ 40.92 5 x week $204.60
2 x,week $ 81.84 6 x week $245.52
3 x week $122.76 7 x week $286.44
4 xweek $163.68
Non-contracted 4 Cubic Yard pickup:
$30.00
10. Temporary 3 Cubic Yard Bin Rate:
11. Extra Temporary 3 Cubic Yard Pickup:
12. Re, delivery and Reinstatement Rate:
13. Rolloff Disposal Rate:
14. Rolloff Recycling Rate:
15. Rolloff Compactor Rate:
16. Rolloff Recycling Compactor Rate:
17. "Hard to Service" Vehicle Usage Rate:
18. "Hard to Service" Bin Moving Rate:
19. Special Bin Lids (Locking/CBL) Rate:
20. Deodorizing/Replacing Bin Rate:
$54.10
$25.77
$134.00 plus landfill/recycler fee
$134.00 minus market value
$268.00 plus landfill/recycler fee
$268.00 minus market value
No Char~,e
No Charge
No Charge
No Chari, e
2
21. Annual C~onsumer Price Index ("CPI") and Til~pin~ Fee Aajustrnent.
The rates in paragraphs D 1-20, above, shall be automatically adjusted to reflect changes
in the consumer price index and landfill fees. The CPI adjustment shall be made annually
and such adjustment shall be effective as of the first day of July of each calendar year. The
"CPI adjustment shall be equal to the mount derived by multiplying (a) the previous rate by
Co) the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
within the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Metropolitan Areas during the prior calendar
year, excluding the housing component. The comparison shall be made during March of
each year and shall be effective each July 1st. The first CPI adjustment shall occur July l,
1992. The landfill tipping fee adjustment shall be a pro-rata pass through of any tipping fee
increase, and shall be effective at the start of the first full billing period after the land fill
tipping fee is adjusted. As of the effective date of this Resolution, the landfill tipping fee is
$31.50. The formulas for the annual CPI and Landfill Tipping Fee Adjustments are as
follows:
(1) CPI Formula:
(a) Exhibit "D , " paragraphs 1-4: (Rate x 78%) x CPI
(b) Exhibit "D," paragraphs 5-20: (Rate x 71.5%) x CPI
(2) Land fill Tipping Fee Formula:
(a)
$0.21 per $1.00/ton landfill increase times current published
residential recycling (less greenwastes) diversion rate, e.g., $8.00
landfill increase with a 25% diversion rate would equal: $.21 x 8 =
$1.68 x 25% = $.42 - $1.68 = $1.26 rate increase.
Co)
$0.91 per $1 .O0/ton landfill increase times current published
nonresidential recycling diversion rate less greenwastes, concrete,
and asphalt, e.g., $8.00 landfill increase with a 25% diversion rate
would equal: $.91 x 8 = $7.28 x 25% = $1.82 - $7.28 = $5.46
rate increase.
22. Extraordinary Costs.
A. In addition 'to, and not in lieu of, the annual CPI increase or decrease described in
paragraph D 21, above, Grantee shall also be entitled to rate increases or decreases in an
amount equal to Grantee's extraordinary increases or decreases in its cost of collection. Such
extraordinary cost increases or decreases shall be subject to City Council approval. Since
tipping fee adjustments shall be a pro-ram pass through to City, Grantee's material recovery
facility or transfer station processing fees, now or later imposed, shall neither be levied on
City nor added to the rates in Exhibit 'D." Such extraordinary increases or decreases in its
cost of collection shall include, by way of example and not by way of limitation: (1) a
change in the location of the land fill or other hwful disposal sites to which the Grantee is
required to transport solid waste collected hereunder; (2) levied material recovery facility
host fees; and (3) changes in the local, State or Federal laws governing street sweeping and
temporary bin/rolloff services ax/d collection, separation, transportation, recycling,
cornposting, or disposal of solid waste and construction and street debris.
B. Services and rates not listed in this Exhibit shall be considered an unauthorized level
of service and rate and shall not be provided or levied within the City Limits of the City of
Temecula. Such services and proposed rates shall be brought to the attention of the City
Manager or his designee for evaluation and determination to alter the services and rates
currently provided. The grandfathered hauler (Waste Management of Inland Valley) is
hereby grandfathered to continue to provide the following services and charge the
corresponding rates as depicted below for thirty (30) existing customers within the City
Limits of the City of Temecula:
Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Residential Refuse Monthly Bin Rates (one .1.5
cubic yard bin) with following pickups per week:
1 x week $ 49.41 5 x week $247.05
2 x week $ 98.82 6 x week $296.46
3 x week $148.23 7 x week $345.87
4 x week $197.64
Non-contracted 1.5 Cubic Yard pickup:
Compacted 1.5 Cubic Yard pickup:
$22.50
2.5 X weekly pickup rate
Waste Management of Inland Valley shall not offer the 1.5 cubic yard bin service to any
additional customers. As existing 1.5 cubic yard bin customers' contracts expire, they shall
not be renewed offering the 1.5 cubic yard bin service. Franchised or grandfathered haulers
that are discovered offering solid waste services unauthorized by City shall be determined in
material breach of their respective franchise agreement or solid waste regulations and shall
become the basis for respective contract or license damages or termination.
4
JUH 15 '9.- iW:4~HH W.R.t~. F..-, c
1989
ITY
OF
TEME
ClILA
June 9, 1992
CR&R Incorporated
Attn: Mr. David E. Fahrion
P. O. Box 125.
Startton. California 90680
Dear Mr. Fahri0n:
Attached is a copy of e proposed City Resolution implementing the new Exhibit *D" -
Schedule of Rates that will be presented to the City Council for approval at their City
Council meeting on June 23, 1992 and, if approved, effective July 1, 1992. The
attached ratesialao include this year'a Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 4.3% also effective
July 1, 1992.
Paragraphs I ~hrough 4 did not change, except to apply this year's CPi adjustment.
Paragraphs 5 through 20 changed completely; to include, this year'a CPI adjustment,
increased services and corresponding rates, and the recording of "no charge" services.
Please review =these paragraphs completely. Finally, no significant changes were made
to Paragraphs 21 and 22A. Paragraph 22B is a completely new paragraph that
require your attention. Please review the attached Resolution and new Exhibit "D" and
certify, below, your acceptance of the document. Please return this original signed
document to the undersigned as 8oon as possible.
Sincerely,
Solid Waste Program Manager
¢r//~r/~,~ .............
(Date)
The proposed Resolution and new Exhibit "D" are hereby accepted.
~lncorDorated
4:5174 BLISINE~ PARK DRIVE ' TEICU~, ~M~NIA ~590 · PHONe (114) ~4-19N · F~ (114) 604-10~
June 9, 1992
Ci
TY
OF
TEM
ECIILA
D. RUFFRIDGE
JUN 1 i 199,?
Waste Management of Inland Valley
Attn: Mr. Dean Ruffridge
26500 Scara, mella Circle
Hemet, CalifOrnia 92543
Dear Mr. Ruffridge:
Attached is a copy of a proposed City Resolution implementing the new Exhibit "D" -
Schedule of Rates that will be presented to the City Council for approval at their City
Council meeting on June 23, 1992 and, if approved, effective July 1, 1992. The
attached rates also include this year's Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 4.3% also effective
July 1, 1992.
Paragraphs 1 through 4 did not change, except to apply this year's CPI adjustment.
Paragraphs 5 through 20 changed completely; to include, this year's CPI adjustment,
increased services and corresponding rates, and the recording of "no charge" services.
Please review these paragraphs completely. Finally, no significant changes were made
to Paragraphs 21 and 22A. Paragraph 22B is a completely new paragraph that will
require your attention. Please review the attached Resolution and new Exhibit "D" and
certify, below, your acceptance of the document. Please return this original signed
document to the undersigned as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Solid Waste Program Manager
(Date)
The proposed Resolution and new Exhibit "D" are hereby accepted.
Waste Managem Inland Valley
43174 ISUSlNF_S5 PARK DI~IVE · TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA ggScJO · PHONE (714) 694-]gBg · FAX (714) 694-19c)g
ITEM NO.
11
APPROVAL:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
June 23, 1992
Request for Continuation of a Resolution Establishing the Basis for
Various Building Permits and Valuation
RECOMM~'-NDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council continue consideration of the attached resolution to their
meeting of July 28, 1992, to allow staff to meet with the local Coordinating Committee
regarding this Resolution:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH THE FI~E BASIS FOR VARIOUS PERMITS NOT
SPECIFICAI-I-Y LISTl=]~ IN TIlE MOST CURRENT ADOPTED EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THE DETERMINATION OF
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION VALUATION."
DISCUSSION:
The Building and Safety Department utiliTes building valuation data as published in Building
Standards Magazine, a publication of the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO).
The I. C .B.O. published square foot costs are compiled by the company of Marshall-Swift of Los
Angeles. This cost data is collected from over 726 cities throughout the United States and 48
cities in Canada. The cost dam, which is collected, is used by Marshall-Swift in their monthly
and quarte~y construction estimating publications and is also adjusted by regional modifiers to
more accurately represent building costs in respective regions of the country. I.C.B.O. compiles
and publishes this data for use by its member jurisdictions.
v:Agenda. CCCM623 .ede
Agenda Report
June 23, 1992
Page 2
The use of thisi data is more the rule than the exception for jurisdictions throughout the state.
Due to the f'mancial burden such a construction cost study would impose on a jurisdiction and
the ongoing financial burden it would create to keep updated, the decision to rely on the
expertise of Marshall-Swift and the I.C.B.O. for this information was made.
Attached is a copy of the most current building valuation data from Building Standards
Magazine. Please note that for dwellings and a few othea' uses, the costs are listed for avenge
and good construction. Department policy is to use the average square footage cost plus a 6 %
deduction by using a regional modifier of .94 when calculating new building construction costs.
Attached is a comparison of valuation costs per square foot currently being charged by other
jurisdictions in 'our area.
The Building and Safety Department also issues permits for which valuation data is not provided
such as block walls, patios, etc. Staff conducted a survey of similar fees from surrounding cities
and studied current construction cost data. From this data, a fee schedule was developed to
address these miscellaneous permits.
All of this information has been circulated to the Building Industry Association and the local
Coordinating Committee members.
v:\Agenda. CCCM623 .cde
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH THE FEE BASIS FOR VARIOUS PERMITS
NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE MOST CURRENT ADOPTED EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THE DETERMINATION
OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION VALUATION."
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has adopted the Riverside County Ordinance
No. 348 by reference pursuant to City Ordinance No. 90-04; and
WHEREAS, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 was adopted by reference per
City Ordinance No. 92-_, the City has adopted the Uniform Administrative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Uniform Administrative code provides a fee schedule for all
building, electrical, plumbing, etc., permits; and
WHEREAS, Section 304(b) provides that for the fee basis for various permits
not specifically listed in the Uniform Administrative Code, the City may adopt its own
fee schedule.
Section ;1. Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the Uniform Administrative Code, the
City adopts the following permit fees:
MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT VALUATION SCHEDULE
All listed figures are intended for determining valuation unless specifically noted.
TYPE OF PERMIT' FEE
FIREPLACE
Masonry
Metal
$2500.00 valuation each
$1750.00 valuation each
REFOOF
Aluminum Shingles
Clay Tile (engineering required)
Concrete Tile (engineering required)
Wood Shake
Wood Shingle
Built up
Composition Shingles
Fiberglass ,
Roof Structure Replacement
331.00 per sq.*
277.00 per sq. *
235.00 per sq. *
219.00 per sq. *
219.00 per sq.*
100.00 per sq. *
92.00 per sq. *
92.00 per sq. *
10.75 sq. ft.
* 1 square = 1 O0 sq. ft.
SIGNS -:'
Pole/Monument Illuminated
Pole/Monument Non-illuminated
Proiecting, Illuminated
Projecting, NOn-illuminated
Wall Illuminated
Wall Non-illuminated
ANTENNAS
Dish
Radio over 30'
FENCES/WALLS
Fences - Wire over 6 feet
Fences - Wood over 6 feet
Masonry Walls 3 to 5 feet
Masonry Walls 5 to 6 feet
Masonry Walls over 6 feet
Pilasters
Retaining Walls 2 to 5 feet
Retaining Walls 5 to 6 feet
Retaining Walls over 6 feet
Stone and Brick Veneer
SWIMMING POOLS
Gunire
Fiberglass
Vinyl
'7'
SPAS
Gunite
Fiberglass
Portable
DECKS/PATIO COVERS
Deck/Balcony up to 30 inches
Patio Cover, Aluminum
Patio Cover, Lattice
Patio Enclosure
Awning, CanVas
Awning, Aluminum
38.00 sq. ft.
23.25 sq. ft
32.75 sq. ft
31.50 sq. ft
20.13 sq.'ft.
20.13 sq. ft
e3175.00 valuation each
92600.00 valuation each
30.00 .permit fee per lot
30.O0'permit fee per lot
10.00 linear foot
15.00 linear foot
20.00 linear foot
00.00 each
14.00 linear foot
20.00 linear foot
25.00 linear feet
6.50 sq. ft.
$ 25.00 sq. ft.
$ 75.00 permit fee
$ 75.00 permit fee
$ 25.00 sq. ft.
$ 75.00 permit fee
~3000.00 valuation each
$ 5.60 sq. ft.
$ 8.25 sq. ft.
$ 9.00 sq. ft.
$ 10.75 sq. ft.
$ 6.50 sq. ft.
$ 15.55 sq. ft.
MISCELLANEOUS --
Agriculture Building/Barn/Stable
Aluminum Siding
Demolition
Garage Conversion
Green House
Install Windows/Sliding Door
Interior Partition
Plastering inside or out
Room Addition
Stairs
Tenant Improvement
Sun Room (manufactured)
14.25 sq. ft.
4.25 sq. ft.
60.00/~ $30./hr.
2.hr. minimum
24.21 sq. ft.
4.25 sq.
11.25 sq, ft.
36.25 linear foot
2.00 sq. ft.
49.16 sq.
10.75 sq. ft.
19.00 sq. ft.
7.80 sq. ft.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS/INSPECTIONS
Certificate of Occupancy
Fire Damage
Work Without Permits
Pre-Submittal Review
Final Inspection 0nly
COPIES
Photocopying
30.00
30.00 hr. 2 Hr. Min.
30.00 hr. 2 Hr. Min.
30.00 hr. I Hr. Min.
30.00 hr. 2 Hr. Min.
$ .25 per copy
DOUBLEWIDE TRAILERS - STATE HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEV.
SOLAR
Building Permits per gross sq. ft. of collector
Building permits
Additional Buildings
Plan Check
$ .47 sq. ft. first 100
sq. ft.
$ .06 sq.ft. for each
additional sq.
$ 11.75 each sq. ft.
$ 22.50 each application
BUILDING VALUATION DATA
As Published in Building Standards Magazine with .94 Regional Modifier Applied
Cost Per
Square Foot
Average
Occupancy & Type
1. APARTMENT HOUSES:
Type I or II F,R. $ 67,21
(Good) $81,78
Type V-Masonry
(or Type III) 53,39
(Good) $66.55
Type V-Wood
Frame 47.56
(Good) $59.22
Type I-Basement
Garage 28,11
2. AUDITORIUMS:
Type I or II F.R. 78.77
Type I1-1 Hour 55.93
Type II-N 53.11
Type II1-1 Hour 59.78
Type III-N 57.06
Type V-1 Hour 54.90
Type V-N 52.17
3. BANKS:
Type I or II F.R. 112.00
Type I1-1 Hour 81.03
Type II-N 77.17
Type II1-1 Hour 91.84
Type III-N 87.70
Type V-1 Hour 81.03
Type V-N 77.08
4. BOWLING ALLEYS:
Type I1-1 Hour 37.69
Type II-N 36.00
Type II1-1 Hour 41.36
Type III-N 39.39
Type V-1 Hour 35.25
5. CHURCHES:
Type I or II F.R. 74.45
Type I1-1 Hour 55.65
Type II-N 52.83
Type II1-1 Hour 59.69
Type III-N 56.87
Type V-1 Hour 54.33
Type V-N 51.70
6. CONVALESCENT
HOSPITALS:
Type I or II F.R. 105.56
Type I1-1 Hour 88.55
Type II1-1 Hour 75.29
Type V-1 Hour 67.77
Cost Per
Square Foot
Average
Occupancy & Type
7. DWELLINGS:
Type V-Masonry $ 57.15
(Good) ~73,32
Type V-Wood
Frame 49.16
(Good} $69.56
Basements-
Semi-finished 15.23
(Good) ~17.11
Unfinished 11,47
(Good) ~13.25
8. FIRE STATIONS
Type I or II F.R. ~ 86.29
Type I1-1 Hour 55.93
Type II-N 53.11
Type II1-1 Hour 62.23
Type III-N 59.03
Type V-1 Hour 55.65
Type V-N 52.83
9. HOMES FOR THE
ELDERLY:
Type I or II F.R. 77.83
Type I1-1 Hour 62.42
Type II-N 59.41
Type II1-1 Hour 65.05
Type III-N 62.23
Type V-1 Hour 62.04
Type V-N 58.94
10. HOSPITALS
Type I or II F.R. 123.61
Type II1-1 Hour 102.84
Type V - I Hour 95.41
11o HOTELS AND
MOTELS:
Type I or II F.R. 77.27
Type II1-1 Hour 66.74
Type III-N 63.54
Type V-1 Hour 58.19
Type V-N 55.55
12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS:
Type I or II F.R. 42.86
Type I1-1 Hour 29.23
Type III {stock) 27.64
Type II1-1 Hour 32.24
Type III-N 30.83
Tilt-up 21.71
Type V-1 Hour 29.14
Type V-N 27.45
Cost Per
Square Foot
Average
Occupancy & Type
13. JAILS:
Type I or II F.R. 120,88
Type II1-1 Hour 109.89
Type V-1 Hour 78.96
14. LIBRARIES:
Type I or II F.R. 88,55
Type I1-1 Hour 61.95
Type II-N 58.75
Type II1-1 Hour 67.40
Type III-N 64.11
Type V-1 Hour 60,35
Type V-N 57.53
15. MEDICAL OFFICES:
Type I or II F,R, 90.43
Type I1-1 Hour 67.30
Type II-N 64.11
Type II1-1 Hour 73,60
Type III-N 70.22
Type V-1 Hour 68.53
Type V-N 64.77
16. OFFICES:
Type I or II F.R. ~ 81.03
Type I1-1 Hour 52.45
Type II-N 50.01
Type II1-1 Hour 57.72
Type III-N 55.08
Type V-1 Hour 53.39
Type V-N 50.95
17. PRIVATE GARAGES:
Wood Frame 17.48
Masonry 20.68
Open Carports 12.50
18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS:
Type I or II F.R. 94.38
Type I1-1 Hour 70.41
Type II-N 67.30
Type II1-1 Hour 78.85
Type III-N 75.29
Type V-1 Hour 69.65
Type V-N 66.83
19. PUBLIC GARAGES:
Type I or II F.R. 37.22
Type I or II
Open Parking 29.14
Type II-N 21.81
Type II1-1 Hour 26.23
Type IlloN 25.10
Type V-1 Hour 21.71
Cost Per
Square Foot
Average
Occupancy & Type ~
20. RESTAURANT:
Type II1-1 Hour 70.31
Type III-N 66.93
Type V-1 Hour 62,32
Type V-N 59,31
21 SCHOOLS:
Type I or II F.R. 84.60
Type I1-1 Hour 60.35
Type II1-1 Hour 60.82
Type III-N 57.62
Type V-1 Hour 55.65
Type V-N 52.64
22. SERVICE STATIONS:
Type II-N 50.20
Type II1-1 Hour 50.38
Type V-1 Hour 44.27
Canopies 19.36
23. STORES:
Type I or II F.R. 63.36
Type I1-1 Hour 38.16
Type II-N 37.41
Type II1-1 Hour 46.62
Type III-N 43.99--~
Type V-1 Hour 37.2;,
Type V-N 34.87
24. THEATERS:
Type I or I'1 F.R. 82.53
Type II1-1 Hour 59.78
Type III-N 56.96
Type V-1 Hour 53.96
Type V-N 51.51
25.WAREHOUSES:
Type I or II F.R. 37.51
Type II or V-1 Hour22.18
Type II or V-N 20.87
Type II1-1 Hour 25.47
Type III-N 24.35
EQUIPMENT
AIR CONDITIONING:
Commercial 3.24
Residential 2.68
Sprinkler System 1.55
Section 2. Findings. The foregoing fees do not exceed the cost of providing the
associated services.
Section 3. 'Severability. If any provision, clause sentence or paragraph of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid,
such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the provision of this
Ordinance, which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications, and
to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are declared severable.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Temecula
that the following fee schedule is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 304(b) to serve
as the fees of the City of Temecula for various permits not specifically listed in the most
current adopted. edition of the Uniform Administrative Code and for the determination of
building construction valuation:
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this__ day of
,1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM NO. 12
APPROVAL:------
CITY ATTORNEY '~ ~
FINANCE OFFICER(~/
CITY MANAGERS-
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
June 23, 1992
Approval of Contract Award for Plan Review Services
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the award of contract to ESGIL
Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, as the
primary plan review firm to provide complete plan review services to the Building and
Safety Department. It is further recommended that the City Council approve the
retention of Van Dorpe/Chou and Associates, Inc., 295 North Rampart Street, Orange,
CA 92668, and Melad and Associates, 8907 Warner Avenue, Suite 161, Huntington
Beach, CA 92647, to support the plan review needs of the City's Building and Safety
Department.
DISCUSSION:
The ESGIL Corporation has provided complete plan review services to the Building and
Safety Department for a ten (10) month period beginning August 13, 1991. Staff has
found the turnaround times, accuracy and customer relations of the ESGIL Corporation
to be timely and of the highest quality. Staff has also had the .opportunity to work
with VanDorpe/Chou and Associates, Inc., and Melad and Associates during this
period and found their responsiveness to the Department's plan review needs to be
an asset.
Staff is recommending the ESGIL Corporation be the primary plan review firm to the
Building and Safety Department with VanDorpe/Chou and Associates, Inc., and Melad
and Associates further supporting the plan review needs of the Building and Safety
Department on an as-needed basis. Compensation for plan review services will remain
as previously agreed at the following rates:
v:Agenda\ooom-623.CNT
Agenda Report
June 23, 1992
Page 2
1. Esgil Corporation
69% of plan check fees collected by
City
2. Vandorpe Chou Associates, Inc.
65% of plan check fee collected by
City
3. Melad and Associates
70% of plan check fee collected by
City
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for plan review services has been approved for Fiscal Year '92-'93 in the
amount of $120,000 in Account No. 001-999-162-42-5248 "Consulting Services."
No additional funds are being requested.
v:Agende%ccem-623,CNT
AGREEMENT
FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July, 1992,
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and Esg~l Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor." The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
I. SERVICES: Contractor shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto. COntractor shall complete the tasks according to the
schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
2. PERFORMANCE: Contractor shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and
to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks
described herein.
3. PAYMENT: The City agrees to pay Contractor as set forth in Exhibit B.
Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT:
The City may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this
Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at
least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the
Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless
the notice provides otherwise. Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving
an invoice from the Contractor, the City shall pay Contractor for work
done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement
such suspension, termination or abandonment shall make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT: In the event that Contractor is in default for
cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no
obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work
performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing
the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City Failure by the Contractor to make progress in the
performance work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond
his control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, shall not
be considered a default.
-2-
If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor defaults in
the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the
Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days
after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a
satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default
within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and
without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or
under this Agreement.
6. TERM: This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 199_~2 and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed,
but in no event later than June 30. 1993.
Any disputes_regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Contractor arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof,
shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Contractor shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1280, et see. City and Contractor shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
-3°
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: Upon satisfactory completion of, or in
the event of termination, suspension of abandonment of this Agreement,
all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the
course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this
Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used,
reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of
the Contractor.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The Contractor is and shall at all times
remain as to the City a wholly independent Contractor. It is expressly
understood and agreed that Contractor shall in no event as a result of
this contract be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are
entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement benefits,
worker~'._s compensation benefits, and injury leave or other leave benefits,
and for such purposes shall be deemed an independent Contractor.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES: The Contractor shall keep itself informed of
State and Federal Laws and regulations which, in any manner, affect
those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service
pursuant to this Agreement. The Contractor shall at all times observe
and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers
and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by
failure of the contractor to comply with this section.
-4-
10. NOTICE: Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice
on ~e other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the
City Manager of the City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California 92591 and the Contractor Richard EscJate.
President. ESGII Cornoration, 9320 Chespneake Drive. #208. San DiecJo.
California 92123-unless and until different addresses may be furnished
in writing by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have
been served seventy*two (72) hours after the same has been deposited
in the United States Postal Services. This shall be valid and sufficient
service of notice for,all purposes.
11. ASSIGNMENT: the Contractor shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without
the prior written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be
the value to the City of the services rendered.
12.
LIABILITY INSURANCE: The Contractor shall maintain insurance
acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this
Contract, against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Bests'
~ating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall be
ii~cluded in the Contractor's bid. The Contractor shall provide the
following scope and limits of insurance:
Mirlimum Scolds of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 (ed. 1/73)
covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services
Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive
General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General
Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001 ).
2. Insurance Services Office form No. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code I "any auto" and endorsement CA
0025.
3. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of
the State of California, an Employer's Liability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
-6-
Minimum Limits of Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits of
insurance no less than:
1. General Liability 91,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence
for bodily injury and property damage.
2. Automobile Liability: 91,000,000 combined single limit per
accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
and Employers Liability limits of 91,000,000 per
California
accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: 91,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions: Insurance policies required by
this contract shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following
provisions:
a, All Policies: .Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except
after thirty (30) day's prior written notice to the City via United
States First Class Mail.
b. General Liabilitv and Automobile Liability CoveraQe: The City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to
be covered as insureds as respects: Liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned,
occupied or used by the contractor, or automobiles owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall
contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers;
With regard to claims arising from the Contractor's performance
of the work described in this contract, the Contractor's insured
coverage shall be .primary insured as respects the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance of self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Contractor's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect the limits of the insurers liability.
Worker's Compensation and EmDIover's LiabiliW Coverage: The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the
13.
City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers
for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the
d. Verification o1~ Coverage: Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this
clause. the certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed
by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City
and are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Contractor shall include all subcontracts as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each
su_bcontractor. All coverages for ;subcontractors shall be subject
to all of the requirements stated 'herein.
INDEMNIFICATION: The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City and its agents and employees from and against all claims,
damages, losses and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising our of
or resulting from the Contractor's acts or omissions pursuant to this
contract.
-9-
The City shall indemnify and hold harmless ESGIL and its agents and
employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the City's acts
or omissions pursuant to this contract.
14. FREEDOM FROM LIABILITY: The Contractor and Contractor staff, when
performing duties as representative of the City, shall have the freedom
from liability contained in Section 202, of the 1988 Edition of the
Uniform Building Code.
15. FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY: The City's Chief Building Official shall
have final decision authority over the results of the plan check by the
Contractor and all work performed by the Contractor shall be to the
Satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
In instances where the permit applicant takes exception to the
Contractor's interpretation of the regulations contained in Title 24, the
Building Official shall render a final'decision utilizing, as deemed
appropriate, the resources of the City Attorney and/or the Board of
Appeals.
16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior
writing in respect to the subject matter hereof.
-10-
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of
this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from
and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may
be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR
By:
Richard Esgate, ESGil Corporation
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-11-
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
Plan Check ScOpe of Work
Perform traditional preliminary plan review consultations in ESGIL
Corporation's main office by meeting or by telephone.
Perform traditional initial plan review of submitted plans to determine
compliance with City adopted:
Uniform Building Code
Uniform Plumbing Code
Uniform Mechanical Code
National Electrical Code
California Sate, Title 24 (Energy Conservation; Disabled Access;
and Noise Attenuation)
Provide the applicant's designee and the City, a typed list of items
needing clarification or change to achieve conformance with the above
regulations.
Perform all necessary liaison with the applicant's design·e, either by
telephone, mail or meeting in Esgil Corporation's main office, and
perform all necessary rechecks to achieve conformance to the
regulations.
Perform all necessary liaison with the Building Official or his designee,
either by mail, telephone or in Esgil Corporation's main office, to insure
compliance with U.B.C. Sections 105 and 106 and to insure compliance
with local policy interpretations.
Perform plan reviews of revisions to plans that have previously been
approved for permit issuance, or perform plan reviews of major changes
to plans prior to such approval, when such major changes are not
required to achieve code conformance.
Attend meetings related to proposed building projects at the request of
the Building Official at locations other than ESGIL Corporation's plan
check office.
Deliver plans to the City, perforated with the date and the word "ESGIL",
with a transmittal cover sheet noting the perforated plans "substantially
comply with the jurisdiction's Building Codes."
-12-
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
COMPLETE PLAN CHECK:
Esgil Corporation's fee shall be 80% of the Plan Review Fee calculated per
Section 304 or the latest published edition of the Uniform Building Code for
each building plan checked. The construction valuation shall be based on the
most recent valuation multiplier published by the International Conference of
Building Officials in Building Standards or on the architects; estimated
construction cost, or on the Building Official's cost estimate, whichever is
greater.
Not withstanding the above, the minimum contractor fee for plan checking a
proposed project shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00).
Plan check fee for repetitive identical buildings shall be 80% of the plan check
fee as noted above for the first, or basic building, and 20% of the plan check
fee as noted above for each additional building.
The single fee includes all rechecks and there are no additional charges for
preliminary plan check conferences at our office, expedited processing,
checking plans that are eventually found to be incomplete or for the pick-up and
delivery of plans or for meetings with the Building Official at his/her request.
PARTIAL PLAN CHECK:
Partial plan checks are discouraged due to the need to coordinate all disciplines
in a plan review, however, the fees for partial plan checks are:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Basic minimum for any plan check
Structural only
Fire-Life
U.P.C.
N.E.C.
U.M.C.
Title 24 Energy and Sound Control
Title 24 Disabled Access
50% of 1988 UBC plan check fee
10% additional
10% additional
2% additional
2% additional
2% additional
2% additional
2% additional
Total: 80% of UBC fee
PLAN CHECK OF REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS:
Revisions to previously approved plans will be at Esgil Corporation's published
hourly rates shown on the "Labor Rates Schedule."
v:\wp\CONTRACT.esg
-13-
AGREEMENT
FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July, 1992,
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and Vandorpe Chou AsSociates. Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Contractor."
The parties hereto mutually agree as followS:
I. ~SERVICES: Contractor shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto. Contractor shall complete the tasks according to the
schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
2. PERFORMANCE: Contractor shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and
to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks
described herein.
3. PAYMENT: The City agrees to pay Contractor as set forth in Exhibit B.
Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT:
The City may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this
Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at
least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the
Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless
the notice provides otherwise. Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving
a~n invoice from the Contractor, the City shall pay Contractor for work
done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement
such suspension, termination or abandonment shall make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT: In the event that Contractor is in default for
cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no
ObligatiOn or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work
performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing
the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City Failure by the Contractor to make progress in the
performance work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond
his control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, shall not
be considered a default.
-2-
!f the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor defaults in
the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the
Contractor with, written notice of 'the default. The CGntractor shall have ten ( 1 O) days
after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a
satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default
within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and
without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or
under this Agreement.
6.
TERM: This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1992, and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks.described herein are completed,
but in no event later than June 30, 1993.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Contractor arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof,
shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Contractor shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1280, et Seq. City and Contractor shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
-3-
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: Upon satisfactory completion of, or in
the event of termination, suspension of abandonment of this Agreement,
all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the
course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this
Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used,
reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of
the Contractor.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The Contractor is and shall at all times
remain as to the City a wholly independent Contractor. It is expressly
understood and agreed that Contractor shall in no event as a result of
'this contract be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are
entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement benefits,
worker's compensation benefits, and injury leave or other leave benefits,
and for such purposes shall be deemed an independent Contractor.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES: The Contractor shall keep itself informed of
State and Federal Laws and regulations which, in any manner, affect
those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service
pursuant to this Agreement. The Contractor shall at all times observe
and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers
and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by
failure of the contractor to comply with this section.
-4-
10. NOTICE: Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice
on the other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the
City Manager of the City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California 92591 and the Contractor Neil Evans.
Vandoroe Chou Associates. Inc.. 295 RpmDart Street. Oranqe. California
92668 unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing
by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served
seventy-two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United
States Postal Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of
notice for all purposes.
11. ASSIGNMENT: the Contractor shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without
the prior written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be
the value to the City of the services rendered.
-5-
12.
LIABILITY INSURANCE: The Contractor shall maintain insurance
acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this
contract, against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Bests'
rating Of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall be
included in the Contractor's bid. The Contractor shall provide the
following scope and limits of insurance:
Minimum Scope of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 (ed. 1/73)
covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services
Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive
General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General
Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001 ).
2. Insurance Services Office form No. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code I "any auto" and endorsement CA
0025.
3. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of
the State of California, an Employer's Liability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
-6-
Minimum Limits of Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits of
insurance no less than:
1. General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence
for bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined
accident for bodily injury and property damage.
single limit per
Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liabi|ity limits of $1,000,000 per
accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured RetentionS: Insurance policies required by
this contract shall .contain or be endorsed to contain the following
provisions:
a. All Policies: Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except
after thirty (30) day's prior written notice to the City via United
States First Class Mail.
b. General Liability and Automobile :LiabiliW Coverage: The City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to
-7-
be covered as insureds as respects: Liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned,
occupied or used by the contractor, or automobiles owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall
contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
With regard to claims arising from the Contractor's performance
of the work described in this contract, the Contractor's insured
coverage shall be primary insured as respects the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance of self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Contractor's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its off!cers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect the limits of the insurers liability.
Worker's Compensation and Eml~loyer's Liability Coverage: The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the
-8-
13.
City of Temecula, .its officers, officials, employees and volunteers
for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the
d. Verification of Coverage: Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance eftacting coverage required by this
clause. the certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed
by a person' authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City
and are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences, The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Contractor Shall include all subcontracts as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject
to all of the requirements stated herein.
INDEMNIFICATION: The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City and its agents and employees from and-against all claims,
damages, losses and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising our of
or resulting from the Contractor's acts or omissions pursuant to this
contract.
-9-
14.
15.
16.
The City shall indemnify and hold harmless ESGIL and its agents and
employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the City's acts
or omissions pursuant to this contract.
FREEDOM FROM LIABILITY: The Contractor and Contractor staff, when
performing duties as representative of the City, shall have the freedom
from liability contained in Section 202, of the 1988 Edition of the
Uniform Building Code.
FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY: The City's Chief Building Official shall
have final decision authority over the results of the plan check by the
Contractor and all work performed by the Contractor shall be to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
In instances where the permit applicant takes exception to the
Contractor's interpretation of the regulations contained in Title 24, the
Building Official shall render a final decision utilizing, as deemed
appropriate, the resources of the City Attorney and/or the Board of
A~peals.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior
writing in respect to the subject matter hereof.
-10-
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of
this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from
and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may
be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR
By:
Neil Evans,
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall
Vandorpe Chou Associates, Inc.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-11-
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
PLAN CHECKING
Provide a complete plan check service to the City of Temecula including analysis for
compliance with the City's adopted uniform codes as follows:
Building code requirement including:
- Requirements based upon type of occupancy;
- Requirements based upon type of construction;
- Engineering regulations including seismic loads;
- Detailed regulations of construction;
- Fire resistive standards for fire protection;
- Fire and life safety requirements;
- Accessibility to the physically handicapped.
National Electrical Code requirements
Uniform Plumbing Code requirements
Title 24 energy conservation compliance
City's amendments to the uniform codes
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
AGREEMENT
FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of JUly, 1992,
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and Metad and Associates, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor."
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
I. SERVICES: Contractor shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto. Contractor shall complete the tasks according to the
schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
2. PERFORMANCE: Contractor shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and
to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks
described herein.
3. PAYMENT: The City agrees to pay Contractor as set forth in Exhibit B.
Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT:
The City may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this
Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at
least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the
Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless
the notice provides otherwise. Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving
an invoice from the Contractor, the City shall pay Contractor for work
done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement
such suspension, termination or abandonment shall make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT: In the event that Contractor is in default for
cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no
obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work
performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing
the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City Failure by the Contractor to make progress in the
performance work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond
his control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, shall not
be considered a default.
-2-
If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor defaults in
the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the
Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (1 O) days
after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a
satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default
within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and
without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or
under this Agreement.
6. TERM: This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1992, and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed,
but in no event later than June 30, 19~).
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Contractor arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof,
shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Contractor shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the CitY of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1280, et seo. City and Contractor shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
-3-
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: Upon satisfactory completion of, or in
the event of termination, suspension of abandonment of this Agreement,
all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the
course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this
Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used,
reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of
the Contractor..
iNDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The Contractor is and shall at all times
remain as to the City a wholly independent Contractor. It is expressly
understood and agreed that Contractor shall in no event as a result of
this contract be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are
entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement benefits,
Worker's compensation benefits, and injury leave or other leave benefits,
and for such purposes shall be deemed an independent Contractor.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES: The Contractor shall keep itself informed of
State and Federal Laws and regulations which, in any manner, affect
those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service
pursuant to this Agreement. The Contractor shall at all times observe
and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers
and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by
failure of the contractor to comply with this section.
-4-
10. NOTICE: Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice
on the other. respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the
City Manager of the City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California 92591 and the Contractor Jose Melad
Melad and Associates. 8907 Warner Avenue. Suite 1 61. Huntinqton
Beach. California 92647 unless and until different addresses may be
furnished in writing by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed
to have been served seventy-two (72) hours after the same has been
deposited in the United States Postal. Services. This shall be valid and
sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
11. ASSIGNMENT: the Contractor shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without
the prior written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be
the value to the City of the services rendered.
-5-
12.
LIABILITY INSURANCE: The Contractor shall maintain insurance
acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this
contract, against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or
sUbcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with insurer with a Bests'
rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall be
included in the Contractor's bid. The Contractor shall provide the
following scope and limits of insurance:
Minimum Scope of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1.. Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 (ed. 1/73)
covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services
Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive
General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General
Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001 ).
2. · Insurance Services Office form No. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) cov. ering
Automobile Liability, code I "any auto" and endorsement CA
0025.
3. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of
the State of California, an Employer's Liability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
-6-
Minimum Limits of Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits of
insurance no less than:
1. General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence
for bodily injury and property damage..
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per
accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's
Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per
accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions: Insurance policies required by
this contract shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following
provisions:
a. All Policies: Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except
after thirty (30) day's prior written notice to the City via United
States First Class Mail.
b. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverage: The City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to
-7-
be covered as insureds as respects: Liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned,
occupied or used by the contractor,. or automobiles owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall
contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
With regard to claims arising from the Contractor's performance
of the work described in this contract, the Contractor's insured
coverage shall be primary insured as respects the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance of self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Contractor's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect the limits of the insurers liability.
Worker's Compensation and Emolover's Liability Coverage: The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the
13.
City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers
for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the
City.
d. Verification of Coverage: Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this
clause. the certificates for each!insurance policy are to be signed
by a person authorized by that. insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City
and are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Contractor shall include all subContracts as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject
to all of the requirements stated herein.
INDEMNIFICATION: The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City and its agents and employees from and against all claims,
damages, losses and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising our of
or resulting from the Contractor's acts or omissions pursuant to this
contract.
-9-
14.
15.
16.
The City shall indemnify and hold harmless ESGIL and its agents and
employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses,
i~ncluding attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the City's acts
Or omissions pursuant to this contract.
FREEDOM FROM LIABILITY: The Contractor and Contractor staff, when
performing duties as representative of the City, shall have the freedom
from liability contained in Section 202, of the 1988 Edition of the
Uniform Building Code.
FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY: The City's Chief Building Official shall
have final decision authority over the results of the plan check by the
Contractor and all work performed by the Contractor shall be to the
Satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
In instances where the permit applicant takes exception to the
Contractor's interpretation of the regulations contained in Title 24, the
Building Official shall render a final decision utilizing, as deemed
appropriate, the resources of the City Attorney and/or the Board of
Appeals.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior
writing in respect to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of
this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from
and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may
be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR
By:
Melad and Associates
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-11-
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
SERVICES:
PLAN CHECKING
Complete plan check of all types of building plans and related structures for building
permit. All plan checking will be performed by Melad and Associates, their employees
and associated consultants to ensure full compliance with all City adopted codes
(building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical), including State and Federal Regulations
related to building construction. Provide a complete plan check service to the City of
Temecula including analysis for compliance with the City's adopted uniform codes as
follows:
Building code requirement including:
Requirements based upon type of occupancy;
- Requirements based upon type of construction;
- Engineering regulations including seismic loads;
- Detailed regulations of construction;
- Fire resistive standards for fire protection;
- Fire and life safety requirements;
- Accessibility to the physically handicapped.
National Electrical Code requirements
Uniform Plumbing Code requirements
Title 24 energy conservation compliance
City's amendments to the uniform codes
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
COMPENSATION:
City may elect to compensate Melad and Associates an amount equal to 70%
of the plan check fee established by the City or at an hourly rate of $45.00.
Exception for repetitive plan check: 70% for model plans and 25% for
repetitive plans. Included on repetitive plan check is construction observation
for models only, to assist City Inspectors in discovering and eliminating any
deficiencies and/or clarifications on approved plans prior to start of production.
Structural plan check only: To review structural plans and calculations under
the Uniform Building Code provisions and standard engineering practice.
Compensation:
An amount equal to 45% of the building plan check fee
established by the City or an hourly rate of $45.00
State Energv Regulations. Title 24 of the State Administrative Code: Complete
plan check on building envelope, HVAC system and lighting system.
Compensation:
An amount equal to 25% of the building plan check fee
established by the City or an hourly rate of $45.00. A
minimum fee of $100.00 is also required.
Grading plan check: To review grading and other related civil engineering work.
This work is not included on the complete plan check scope of work.
Compensation: $45.00 per hour with a minimum fee of $200.00.
Special projects for fast track (accelerated plan check will be accommodated upon
request by the City with 50% additional fee.
Checking time will be five working days minimum to fifteen working days maximum,
depending on the size and complexity of the project. Rechecks will be completed in
three to ten working days.
Included with the above services, with no additional cost to the City, is pick-up and
delivery of plans on an as-needed basis, and consultation on related matters.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of
this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from
and after the date it is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may
be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the ,day and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR CITY OF TEMECULA
By: , By:
Jose Melad Patricia H. Birdsall
Melad and Associates
APPROVED A~S TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, C~ty Clerk
ITEM NO. 13
ORDINANCE NO 92-13
AN .ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
!TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE
FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO:
THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE 1991
RnlTION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS. THE 1~91
EDITION OF THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, THE 1991 EDITION
OF THE UNIIrORM PLUMBING CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE 1991 EDITION OF THE
UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS
BUILDINGS, THE 1991 EF}ITION OF THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE,
THE 1991 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, THE 1991 EDITION
OF THE UNIFO~ FIRE CODE STANDARDS AND THE 1991 EDITION
OF THE UNIFORM SWIMMING POOLS. SPAS AND HOT TUB CODE.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The following are hereby adopted by reference, as amended by Section
2 of this Ordinance, as the building codes of the City of Temecula, three (3) copies of which
are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
(A)
Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition with appendices and California State
amendments;
(B) Uniform Building Code Standards, 1991 edition;
(c)
Uniform Mechanical Code, 1991 edition with appendices and California
State amendments;
(D)
Uniform Plumbing Code, 1991 edition with appendices and California
State amendments;
(E) Uniform Administrative Code, 1991 edition;
(F)
Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Building, 1991 edition;
Uniform Housing Code, 1991 edition;
Uniform Swimming Pools. Spas and Hot Tub Code, 1991 edition.
Ords 92-13 -1-
SECTION 2. Amendments. The following amendments are made to the building cedes,
1991 editions, as adopted by this Ordinance:
(A) The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the Uniform
Building: Cede, 1991 edition adopted by this Ordinance:
1. Section 301~ is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 301 (a) Permits Required. Itshall be unlawful for any person, firm
or corporation to erect, construct enlarge, alter, repair, roof or re-roof, move, improve, remove,
convert of demolish any building or structure regulated by this code, except as specified in
Subsection (13) of this Section, or cause the same to be done unless a separate, appropriate permit
for each building, structure, or building service equipment has first been obtained from the
Building Official.
2. Section 301(b)5, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 301(b) Work Exempt from Permits. A building permit shall not
be required for the following:
Retaining walls which are not over two (2) feet in height,
measured from the top of footing to top of wall unless supporting
a surcharge or impounding flammable Class I, Class II or III-A
liquids.
Section 301 is hereby amended by adding thereto Subsection (d) to read
as follows:
Section 301(d) Requirements. No person, firm, or corporation shall be
approved to perform work authorized by the City, for building, mechanical or any sub-trade
work relating to building construction unless they are:
1. An employee of an appropriately licensed contractor; or
The property owner performing his/her own work on his/her own
property; or
An employee of the owner, provided the owner shows evidence of
worker's compensation insurance required by state law and city
ordinance, and the owner's federal tax identification number.
Ords 92-13 -2-
o
All contractors and their sub-contractors must have current and
valid city business licenses.
Section 304 is hereby deleted in its entirety.
e
Table No.-3-A Building Permit Fees is hereby deleted in its entirety.
Section 417 is hereby amended by adding the following definition:
Patio Cover. A one story structure, open on two or more sides.
Patio Enclosure. A patio cover with exterior walls with open area of the
longer dimension and one additional wall equal to at least 65 % of the area below a minimum
of 6' 8" measured from the floor. Openings may be enclosed with insect screening or plastic
that is readfly removable translucent or transparent plastic not more than .125 inch in thickness.
7. Section 2623 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2623. The minimum thickness of concrete floor slabs supported
directly on the ground shall not be less than three and one-half (3 1/2) inches All group R
occupancies shall have a minimum six (6) mil moisture barrier with minimum two (2) inch sand
cover.
Exception: 1. A moisture barrier shall not be required under slabs on grade
of open or enclosed patios as defined in Section 417.
z8.
Section 2910 is hereby amended by adding thereto a new paragraph to read
as follows:
Section 2910(f) Slab Dowels. In all occupancies, slab connection from
existing slabs to new construction shall be placed at twenty-four (24") inches on center with
reinforcing steel of one half inch minimum diameter, eighteen (18") inches in length.
9. Chapter 31 is deleted in its entirety.
10. Section 3203 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 3203. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code
shall be as specified in Table No. 32-A and as classified in Section 3204, except that no roof
covering shall be less than a Class B roofing assembly.
Exception:
1. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code
within the Historical District Overlay, generally known as the Old
Town Temecula Historical Preservation District, shall not be less
than a Class C roofing assembly.
Ords 92-13
-3-
2. The roof covering of any structure located on a parcel with a
minimum of one-half acre in area may have a roof covering of not
less than a Class C Roofing Assembly when approved by the
Building Official.
3. The roof covering of all re-roofing shall conform to the
applicable provisions of this section as amended herein, except that
the roof covering for the re-roofing of ten percent (10%) or less
of the area of any roof may consist of material comparable to the
remainder of the roof.
11. Section 3802(t0 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 3802(a) Where required. An Automatic ftre-extinguishing system
shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in this section except where
Riverside County Protection Ordinance No. 546 applies. In that case the most restrictive
provisions will apply.
I2. Section 4704 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Section 4704(e) Suspended Ceilings which are designed and constructed
to support ceiling panels or tiles, with or without lighting fixtures, ceiling mounted air terminals
or other ceiling mounted services shall comply with the requirements of this standard.
Exception:
1. Ceiling area of 144 square feet or less surrounded by walls
which connect directly to the structure above shall be exempt from
the lateral load design requirements of these standards.
2. Ceilings constructed of lath and plaster of gypsum board,
screw or nail attached to suspended members that support a ceiling
on one level extending from wall to wall.
Minimum Design Loads
(f) Lateral Forces.
1. Such ceiling systems and their: connections to the building structure
shall be designed and constructed to resist a lateral force reaction from the partitions as specified
in Subsection 12.1815.
2. Connection of lighting fixtures to the ceiling system shall be designed
for a lateral force of 100 percent of the weight of the fixture in addition to the prescribed
vertical loading as specified in Subsection 10.
Ords 92-13
(g) Grid Members, Connectors and Expansion Devices.
1. The main runners and cross runners of the ceiling system and their
splices, intersection-connectors and expansion devices shall be designed and constructed to carry
a mean ultimate test load of not less than 180 pounds or twice the actual load, whichever is
greater, in tension with a 5-degree misalignment of the members in any direction, and in
compression. In lieu of 5-degree misalignment, the load may be applied with a 1-inch
eccentricity of a sample not more than 24 inches long each side of the splice. The connections
at splices and iintersections shall be of the mechanical interlocking type.
2. Where the composition or configuration of ceiling system members or
assemblies and their connections are such that calculations of their allowable load-carrying
capacity cannot be made in accordance with established methods of analysis, their performance
shall be established by test.
3. Evaluation of test results shall be made on the basis of the mean values
resulting from tests of not fewer than three identical specimens, provided the deviation of any
individual tes~ result from the man value does not exceed plus or minus 10 percent. The
allowable load-carrying capacity as determined by test shall not exceed one half of the man
ultimate test value.
(h) Substantiation.
1. Each ceiling system manufacturer shall furnish lateral loading capacity
and displacement or elongation characteristics for his systems, indicating the following:
(a) Maximum bracing pattern and minimum wire sizes.
(b)
Tension and compression force capabilities of main runner
splices, cross runner connections and expansion devices.
2. All tests shall be conducted by an approved testing agency.
Installation
(i) Vertical Hangers.
1. Suspension wires shall be not smaller than No. 12 gage spaced at 4 feet
on center of No. 10 gage at 5 feet on center along each main runner unless calculations
justifying the increased spacing are provided.
2. Each vertical wire shall be attached to the ceiling suspension member
and to the support above with a minimum of three turns. Any connection device of the
supporting construction shall be capable of carrying not less than 100 pounds.
Ord* 92-13 -5-
3. Suspension Wires shall not hang more than 1 in 6 our-of-plumb unless
countersloping wires are provided.
4. Wires shall not attach to or bend around interfering material or
equipment. A trapeze or equivalent device shall be sued where obstructions preclude direct
suspension. Trapeze suspensions shall be a minimum of back-to-back 11/4 inch cold-rolled
channels for spans exceeding 48 inches.
(j) Perimeter Hangers. The terminal ends of each cross runner and main
runner shall be supported independently a maximum of 8 inches from each wall or ceiling
discontinuity with No. 12 gage wire or approved wall support.
(k) Latexal Force Bracing.
1. Where substantiating design calculations are not provided, horizontal
restraints shall be effected by four No. 12 gauge wires secured to the main runner within 2
inches of the cross runner intersection and splayed 90 degrees from each other at an angle not
exceeding 45 degrees from the plane of the ceiling. A strut fastened to the main runner shall
be extended to and fastened to the structural members supporting the roof or floor above. The
strut shall be adequate to resist the vertical component inducted by the bracing wires. These
horizontal restraint points shall be placed 12 feet on center in both to the structure above shall
be adequate for the load imposed.
2. Lateral force bracing members shall be spaced a minimum of 6 inches
from all horizontal piping or duct work that is not provided with bracing restraints for horizontal
forces. Bracing wires shall be attached to the grid and to the structure in such a manner that
they can support a design load of not less than 200 pounds or the actual design load, whichever
is greater, with a safety factor of 12.
(1) Perimeter Members. Unless perimeter members are a structural part
of the approved system, wail angles or channels shall be considered as aesthetic closer and shall
have no structural value assessed to themselves or their method of attachment to the walls. For
tile ceilings, ends of main runners and cross members shall be tied together to prevent their
spreading.
(m) Attachment of Members to Perimeter. To facilitate installation, main
runners and cross runners may be attached to the perimeter member at two adjacent walls with
clearance between the wall and the runners maintained at the other two walls or as otherwise
shown or described for the approved system.
Lighting FLxtures
(n) Only "intermediate" and "heavy duty" ceiling systems may be used for
the support of lighting fixtures.
Ords 92-13
1. All lighting fixtures shall be positively attached to the suspended ceiling
system. The attachment device shall have a capacity of 100 percent of the lighting fixture
weight acting in any directions.
2. When 'intermediate' systems are used, No. 12 gage hangers shall be
attached to the :grid members within 3 inches of each comer of each fixture. Tandem fixtures
may utilize common wires.
3. When *heavy duty* systems are used, supplemental hangers are not
required if a 48-inch modular hanger pattern is followed. When cross runners are used without
supplemental hangers to support lighting fixtures, these cross runners must provide the same
carrying capacity as the main runner.
4. Lighting fixtures weighing less than 56 pounds shall have, in addition
to the requirements outlined above, two No. 12 gage hangers connected from the fixture housing
to the structure above. These wires may be slack.
5. Lighting. fixtures weighing 56 pounds or more shall be supported
directly from the structure above by approved hangers.
6. Pendant-hung lighting fixtures shall be supported directly from the
structure above using No. 9 gage wire or approved alternate support without using the ceiling
suspension system for direct support.
Mechanical Services
(o) Ceiling mounted air terminals or services weighing less than 20 pounds
shall be positively attached to the ceiling suspension main runners or to cross runners with the
same can'ying capacity as the main runners.
1. Terminals or services weighing 20 pounds but not more than 56 pounds
shall be sGpported directly from the structure above by approved hangers.
Partition
(p) Where the suspended ceiling system is required to provide lateral
support for permanent or relocatable partitions, the connection of the partition to the ceiling
system, the ceiling system members and their connections, and the lateral force bracing shall be
designed to support the reaction force of the partition from prescribed loads applied
perpendicular to the face of the partition. These partition reaction forces shall be in addition to
the load described in Subsection g. Partition connectors, the suspended ceiling system and the
lateral force bracing shall all be engineered to suit the individual partition application and shall
be shown or defined in the drawings or specifications.
Ont* 92-13 -7-
Drawings and Specifications
(q) The drawings shall clearly identify all systems and shall define or show
all supporting details, lighting fixture attachment, lateral force bracing, partition bracing, etc.
Such definition may be by reference to this standard, or appwved system, in whole or in part.
Deviations or variations must be shown or defined in detail.
(C) The following amendments are made to the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1991
edition adopted by this ordinance:
1. Section 510(sO is hereby mended to read as follows:
Section 510(a) Condensate Disposal. The primary condensate line from
the air-cooling coils, fuel burning condensing appliances and the overflow from evaporative
coolers and similar water-supplied equipment shall be collected and discharged to an approved
plumbing fixture. The waste pipe shall have a slope of not less than one-eighth (1/8') inch per
foot and shall be of appwved corrosion-resistant material not smaller than the outlet size as
require din .either Subsection Co) or (c) below for air-cooling coils or condensing fuel-burning
appliances, respectively. Condensate or waste water shall not drain over a public way.
2. Section 1104 is hereby mended by adding the following:
Section 1104. Environmental air ducts not regulated by other provisions
of this code shall comply with this section. Duets shall be substantially airtight and shall comply
with the provisions of Chapter 10. Exhaust ducts shall terminate outside the building and shall
be equipped with back-draft dampers. Environmental air ducts which have an alternate function
as a part of an approved smoke-control system do not require design as Class 1 product-
conveying ducts.
Ducts used for domestic kitchen range ventilation and domestic clothes
dryers shall be of metal and shall have smooth interior surfaces. Commercial dryer exhaust
ducts shall be installed in accordance with their listing. For additional requirements for domestic
dryer exhaust systems, See Section 1903.
EXCEPTION:
1. Approved flexible duct connectors not more than 6 feet
in length may be used in connection with domestic dryer
exhausts. Flexible duct connectors shall not be concealed
within construction.
Bathroom and laundry room exhaust ducts may be of gypsum wallboard
subject to the limitations of Section 1002(a). Aluminum flex ducts are not permitted to be
installed horizontally in rooms that produce steam. An angle greater than forty-five (45) degrees
from the vertical is considered a horizontal run.
Ords 92-13 -8-
(D)
The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the Uniform
~lumbing Cede, 1991 edition adopted by this Ordinance:
I. Section 110(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(a) Indirect Waste Pipe. An indirect waste pipe is a pipe that does not
connect directly with the drainage system but conveys liquid wastes by discharging through an
approved air gap into a plumbing fixture, interceptor or receptacle which is directly connected
to the drainage system.
2. Section 1213(c) is hereby amended by adding the following exceptions:
Exertion: 1. The installation of natural gas line for island fixtures is
allowed beneath the slab when installed in a sleeve of non-ferrous material
sized at two (2) times the diameter of the natural gas pipe. Provisions
shall be provided for future removal of the gas pipe. The sleeve shall be
vented to the exterior and terminate a minimum of two (2) inches above
finished grade.
Exception: 2. The installation of propane gas line for island fixtures is
allowed beneath the slab when installed in a sleeve of minimum schedule
40 ABS at a minimum one (1) times the diameter of the propane gas pipe
with the proper tee fitting for later removal. ABS must be vented to the
exterior and terminate a minimum of two (2) inches above finished grade.
3. The following chapters from the appendices are hereby deleted from the
Uniform Plumbing Cede, 1991 edition, adopted by this ordinance.
1) Appendix E - mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks, is
hereby deleted in its entirety.
in its entirety..
2) Appendix 11 - commercial kitchen grease interceptors, is hereby deleted
(E) The following amendments, additions and deletions are made to the Uniform
Administrative Cede, 1991 edition adopted by this ordinance:
1. Section 205 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 205. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to
erect, construct~ enlarge, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the City,
or cause the same to be done, contrary to, or in violation of any of the provisions of this code.
Any person, tirm, or corporation violating any provisions of this cede shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than
Ords 92-13 -9-
one thousand dollars ($1000.00), or by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
2. Section 304C0) is hereby mended to read as follows:
Section 304(b) The permit fee for each permit shall be set forth in Tables
Nos. 3-A through 3-H, except that the minimum permit fee for any building permit will $30.00.
Where a technical code as been adopted by the jurisdiction for which no fee schedule is shown
in this code, the fee required shall be in accordance with the schedule established by the
legislative body.
The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of
these codes shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the
building permit building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for
which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing,
hearing, air-conditioning, elevators, re-extinguishing systems and any other permanent
equipment.
3. Section 304(c) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 304(c) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required
to be submitted by Subsection (c) of Section 302, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of
submitting plans and specifications for review. Said plan review fee for buildings or structures
shall be 75 percent of the building permit fee as shown in Table NO. 3-A.
The plan review fees for electrical, mechanical and plumbing work shall
be equal to 25 percent of the total permit fee as set forth in Tables Nos. 3-B, 3-C and 3-D.
The plan review fee for grading work shall be as set forth in Table No.
The plan review fees specified in this subsection are separate fees from the
permit fees spe~ifi~ in Section 304(a) and are in addition to the permit fees.
Where plans are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan
review, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate shown in Tables Nos. 3-A
through 3-G.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
Ordinance of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the provision of this Ordinance,
which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this end, the
provisions of this ordinance are declared severable.
Ordt 92-13 -10-
SECTiON 4. CRy Clerk. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
PASS!~T}, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this_ day of
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF;RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92-13 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of June, 1992, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day
of June, 1992.
AYES:,
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Onis 92-13 -11-
ITEM NO.
14
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY/"':~'/'~
FINANCE OFFICER '~ '
CITY MANAGER ~,~~
CITY OF TEMECUIA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
JUne 23, 1992
Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
RECOMMI~-NDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone 5631 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320.
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- upholding the Planning
Commissions' recommendation of Denial for Change of Zone 563 1
based on the Analysis contained in the staff report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- upholding the Planning
Commissions' recommendation of Denial for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25320 based on the Analysis contained in the staff
report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 were recommended for denial
at the Planning Commission meeting of September 16, 1991. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320 and Change of Zone 5631 were originally fried with the Riverside County Planning
Department on November 14, 1989. Subsequently, this project was transferred to the City of
Temecula on April 24, 1990. At the City's pre-DRC meeting, the following issues were raised:
park site considerrations, maintenance of slope areas, grading, slope stability, drainage, traffic,
and density. On January 3, 1991, it was determined at the formal DRC meeting that staff's
concerns relative to this project could be mitigated through project design.
At the Planning Commission meeting on September 16, 1991 a number of concerns were
expressed by the commissioners~ Commissioner Fahey felt that the proposal would be
inconsistent with the future General Plan due to the proposed change in density along a
prominent ridgeline. She also expressed concerns rehtive to potential drainage impacts to the
$~TAFFRPT~320VTM.CC I
t ~!~ Village area and in~ Wafflc flows on Pauba Road. Commissioner Chininsff felt that
the proposed lot palxern on the east side of the project appeared swained. Commissioner Blair
felt that the lights at the. Spo~ Park are of major concern and are a health considention.
Cornrnissioncrs Fahcy and Hoaghnd advised that the Commixsions recommendation for denial
was not intended to preclude any development of the site, but rather was a recornmcndation for
denial of this particular proposal based on the issues cnumcrawxl above (topography, drainage,
traffic, lighting impacts).
A number of individuals also spoke in opposition to the project. Concerns raised by these
individuals included excessive grn_ding, density, in~rens~ traffic flow, and possible
conusrnination of the retention basis in t .nlre Villnge.
The Commission voted 5-0 to deny Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320 based on pwbable inconsistency with the future General plnn due w the increased density
along a prominent ridgeline, as well as the significant gTading required, potential negative
impacts the increased density would have on traffic and drainage into the Lake Village area, and
potentlnl impacts associated with lighting from the Sports Park.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
9.
City Council Resolution No. 92- , Change d Zone 5631 - page 3
City Council Resolution No. 92- , Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25320 -page 7
Conditions d. Appwval-Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 - page 13
Planning Commission Minutes dated September 16, 1991 - page 14
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 28, 1991 - page 15
Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 16, 1991 - page 16
Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 28, 1991 - page 17
Fee Checklist - page 18
Initial Study - page 19
Exhibits - 20
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP Map
c. Surrounding Zoning
d. Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
vgw
ATrACHRggN'T NO. 1
]~'-qOLUTION NO. 92-_
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631
swrAm_-ran~r~cc 3
ATTACHMRNT NO. 1
RgqOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. ~631
C~ANGING THE ZONE FROM (R-R) RURAL
RESIDENTIAL TO ONE-F~,Y DWRLLING (R-l) ON
I~OPERTY LOCATED ON ~ NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA
ROAD BETWEEN YNEZ AND MARGARITA ROADS AND
IL'NOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004.
W~RRE~, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5631 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 September
16, 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 denial of said Change of Zone;
VlrITEREAS,' the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Change of
Zone on June 23, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in
support or oppositi. on to said Change of Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Comxnission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, TIFF. CITY COUNCIL OF TITE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Finndines.
f'mdings:
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
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:
S~'STA~320VTM'CC 4
1, The city is p_wce~__ing in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
general plan, .
2. The p|~nning agency finds, in approving projects and taking .other actions,
including the issuance of buncling permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action
proposed wffi be consistent with the gemoral plan proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference. with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan,
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP*) was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecuh as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the phirotation of its General
Plan.
C. The City Council in denying the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following
findings, to wit:
1. -There is a reasonable probability that the proposed Change of Zone will
be inconsistent with the future General Plan due to the increased density along a prominent
ridgeline.
2. * There is a rusonable pwbability that the pwposed Change of Zone wffi
be inconsistent with the future General Plan due to the extensive grading pwposed.
3. The pwposed Change of Zone is not compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community due to potential drainage impacts to the Lake Village area.
4. The proposed Change of Zone is not compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community due to potential Sports Park lighting impacts to the surrounding
residences.
5. The proposed Change of Zone is not compatible with the health, safety and
weftare of the community due to increased traffic flows on Pauba Road.
Section i2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 3. Conditions. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Zone
Change No. 5631 to change the zoning on 56.6 acres of land from [R-R) Rural Residenti~,l to
[R-l) One-Family Dwelling on property located on the north side of Pauba Road between Ynez
and Margarita Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, DENIE~ AND ADOPTED this 23th day of June, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSA~ J-
MAYOR
I ffF. RERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23th day of June,
1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOKS:
ABSENT:
COUNCn~MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
JUNE S.
CFrYCI-h'rP, K
S~,STAFFRPT~320VTM~CC 6
ATTA~ NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2S320
RF.~OLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 2~320 WHICH PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE A 56.6
ACRE PARCI~-t, INTO 102 SINGI,E FAM~,Y RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON ~ NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD
BETW~N YN!~z AND MARGARITA ROADS AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl, NO. 94.$.-050-004.
Wn~~, Bedford Properties fried Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, plnnning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
~ ' ' ' ' Tract Map application was processed in the time and
WItE~, the Planning Commission considered said Vesting Tentative Tract Map on
September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WI~2REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended denial of said Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
W~H~,EAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Vesting
Tentative Tract Map on June 23, 1992 at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, T~E CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIEC~A
DOES RESOLVE, DETF. M.MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
findings:
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
sxs'rAmqu, r~s~ov'ru.cc 8
1. The city is p~__-,yyi_ing in a timely fashion with the pzelmation of the general
phm. .
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and t~iring other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable pwbability that the land use or action
proposed will be consilent with the S~aeral plan proposal being considered or studied or which
wffi be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordin~nee, s.
B. The Riverside County General 1}inn, as mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter *SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecuh as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The City Council in denying the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map, makes
the following findings, w wit:
1 .... There is a reasonable pwbability that the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract
Map will be inconsistent with the future General Plan due to the increased density along a
prominent ridgeline.
2. - There is a reasonable pwbability that the pwposed Vesting Tentative Tract
Map will be inconsistent with the future General Plan due to the extensive grading proposed.
3. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is not compatible with thc
health, safety and weftare of the community due to potential drainage impacts to the Lake
Village area.
4. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is not compatible with the
health, safety and weftaxe of the community due to potenthi Sports Park lighting impam to the
surrounding residences.
5. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is not compatible with the
health, safety and welfare of the community due to increased traffic flows on Pauba Road.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not b~ a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 3. Conditions. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposing to subdivide 56.6 acres of land into 102 single family
residential lots and 4 open space lots on property located on the north side of Pauba Road
between Ynez and Margarita Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, DENn~,D AND ADO~ this 23th day of June 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
I HIP~RIP-!IY 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 23th day of June,
1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMB~:
COUNCIl-MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
JUNE S. GRI~-~
CITY CI-~-RK
s~xmu, r~v'm.cc 10
A'i'FACHEMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320
S%STAFFRP'FI5631 el. ee
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
-~ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No:
2532O
Project Description: Subdivide 56.6 Acres
into 102 Residential Lots and 40oen Space
Lots
Assessor's Parcel No.:
945-050-004
Planning DetDartment
m
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon wri~en request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This Conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject t0 all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
460. ,
The sUbdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer and
two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address
the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
S'~q'TAFFRPT~S631 .r,,Z 15
All dedications shall be flee from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, .utilities, etc.,
shall be shown on the final map if they are' located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and
recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to
all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose
of the subdivision approval.
A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 103
through 106. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay
for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
b. Be contour-graded to blend with exiSting natural contours.
c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstra.ting methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the. City Planning
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with The environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated December 4,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
Lots created by This subdivision shall comply with the following:
S~'T~F;emSe;~ .CZ I 6
Lots created by This subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone as
provided jn the_ tract's approved Development Design Manual.
Graded but undeveloped land shall' be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
16. The tdeveloper shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as Those operations are
the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
17. Prio~ to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS)
shall be prepared in conjunction wiTh The final map to delineate identified
environmental concer~s and shall be permanently filed with the office of the
City~ Engineer. A copy of The ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded
with copies of The recorded' final map to the Planning Department and the
Department of Building and Safety.
18. The =following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located wiThin Thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute
of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
19.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satiSfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval, The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
S%STAFFRP'T'~SO31 .CZ 17
20.
21.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut ~lopes located adjacent To ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to
the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall
reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage end stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved
in a continuous, undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by-the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
.area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
=Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the
following:
b'~$TAFIcRFl'~e31 ,CZ
18
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscap_ed areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted,
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Pauba Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
_interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-
of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans
and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited
S%$TAFFRPT%5631
19
with the City as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the sul~_mittal of building plans to the Department of Building and
Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer
to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to
individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior
noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
.Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall .address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard
landscaping.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices
shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall comply
with the tract's approved Design Manual.
All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the tract's approved
design manual.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually
operated permanent underground irrigation system.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plot plan shall be Submitted
to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No.
348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted
to aqy governmental agency other than the Riverside County Planning
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site
development with the tract's approved Design manual, and shall contain
the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback,
and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots.
S~%"rAFFRPT~I631 .CZ
20
22.
23.
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x
13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material _swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product
numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable).
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Six (6) copies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8
x 10 inches) of both color and materials board and colored
architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review
and agency distribution. All writing must be legible.
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot
plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits
may be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by
appropriate filing fees.
Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included
within that plot plan.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
ccnditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
S~STAFFRPT'~5631 .CZ 2 1
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a
Habitat Conservatior~Eqan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to
attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract
Map No. 25320, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider 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 subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the. City of Temecula.
The developer shell make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required
for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of
these' costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utili~
provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in
the residence.
Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
S~STAFFRPT~S631 .CZ 22
29.
'The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
appr0ved by the Plan.ning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps.
The CC&R's shall inc_iude liability insurance and methods of maintaining the
open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all
buildings.
30.
No 10t or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the
rightj to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have
any frights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in
the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses
of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet
changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall
permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions
of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale.
This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
31.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
32.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
33.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
appliCant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
ThouSand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee in compliance with AB
3158i, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Riverside C0untv Fire Department
s~r^~wmsa~ .cz 23
34..
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2")
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction,-with-no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
35.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer,
containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed
by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
36.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
37.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
38. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the
time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County
deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Riverside Countv'Deoartment of Public Health
39.
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent' prints
of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a
minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original
drawing to the County surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and
the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of
the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "1
certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25320 is in
accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California
S~qTAFFI~T%Saal oCZ 24
40.
Water District and that the water service, storage, and distribution system will
be adequate to provi.de water service to such Tract Map."
This .certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to
such tract map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection
or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible
official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the County
Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the
recordation of the final map.
41.
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing
to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand
providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the
recordation of the final map.
42.
43.
This isubdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be
connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed
according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the
sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing,
to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the
size of the sewers at the junction of the new system To the existing system.
A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion
of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered
engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that
the design of_the sewer system in Tract Map 25320 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that
the Waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed tract map."
The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least
two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map.
TransPortation Enaineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
44.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Pauba Road along the project frontage
including any transitions. Signing plans only shall be required for internal
Streets A through G. These plans shall be included with the street
improvement plans.
S~STAF FRrr~se3 ~ ~cZ 2 5
45. · Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design require_ments.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
46.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour
or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR
47.
TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping
plan.
Enaineerina Deoartment
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project,
and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
48.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
49.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil
Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
50.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
- City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
- Planning Department;
- Engineering Department;
- Riverside County Health Department;
- CATV Franchise;
- Parks and Recreation Department; and
$~"TAFFRPl'~N31 .CZ 26 ~
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
California Water Quality Control Board.
All road easements a~d/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offerS. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
Paube Road shall be improved with 32 feat of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (64'/88').
Street "A" from Pauba Road to Street "B", Streets "B", "E", and "F" shall be
improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street
improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with !County Standard No. 104, Section A (40'/60').
Street "A" east of Street "B", Streets "C", "D", and "G" shall-be improved with
36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements
may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 105, Section A (36'/60').
Curb;return radii of 35' feet shall be installed at the intersection of Street "F"
and Street "G".
VehiCular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road and so noted on the final
map ;with the exception of street intersections as approved by the City
Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by
all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall
make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's
shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such
provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem
S~,~l'AFFI~5631 ,CZ 27
59.
60.
ee
necessary to protect the interest of The City and its residents.
The CC&R-'s ~_nd Articles of Incorporation of The Property Owner's
Association are subject to The approval of The Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with
the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for The effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all slope areas within the
subdivision.
· All slopes exceeding 5' in height shall be maintained by the homeowners
association.
The CC&R's shall provide That The property shall be developed, operated
and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shall provide That if The property is not maintained in the
condition required by' The CC&R's, Then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon
by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to
a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly
reimbursed.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by homeowner's association or other means
.acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be
submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to
issuance of building permits.
A Notice o~ Intention to form and/or join the Landscape and Lighting District
shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District
information shall be borne by the developer. "
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
ao
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
S%STAFFRPT%5631
28
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
c. c Landscaping (street and parks),
d. Sewer and doriestic water systems.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the 'time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
The i minimum centerlihe radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer,
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0,50 percent.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line.
The :subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engisneering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
The !subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All
drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
71. On-Site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
S~STAFFRPT~,6631 .CZ 29
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final m_ap stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstrucIions."
72.
If required after approval of the final drainage 'report, a drainage easement shall
be obtained from the affected property owners for the release or concentrated
or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. If a drainage easement
cannot be obtained from the property owners adjacent to Lot 20, then the
storm drain system shall be designed to outlet north of Lot 30 into the existing
drainage basin.
73.
All lots containing storm drains for public use shall contain a dedicated
easement for storm drain purposes and provide for an access road to the storm
drain outlet.
74.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
75.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the
Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of
street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
76.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
77.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
78.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
79.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
S~STAFFllrP, S631 .CZ 30
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
80.
Grading of the_ subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough
grading plan.
PRIOR TO iSSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
81.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter,
A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on
all interior public streets.
82.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per Square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
83.
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,
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. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of
those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase.
s~sTAFFerr~sea ~ .cz 3 1
ATTACHMENT N0.4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DATED
SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
S~STAF'FFFT~ 631 e, ,e¢
14
PT.XNN~G COIn~IBOION XINUTr-O
13. Tentative T:act-BS277 and 2one ChanVe 5724
B~pTIo-~,fi:t'KR '16, ~993.
13,1 Proposal to change the zone from ~-R, Rural Residential,
to ~-1, single family residential and to create 102
residential lots and 7 open space lots. Located on the
southwesterly side of Pechanga Creek abutting the
easterly side of Temecula Creek'Inn Golf Course.
C~AIRMaN SOnGLaND opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Tentative Tract 25277
and Zone Change 5724 to the regularly scheduled meeting of
October 21, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
None
14. Change of Bone Mo. S631; and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Mo~ 25320
14.1 Proposal to change to zoning designation of the subject
property from R-R (Rural Residential 20,000 %quare feet
minimum) to R-1 (one-family residential - 7,200 square
feet minimum); and, subdivide approximately 56.6 acres
into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space
lots. Located on the northside of Pauba Road, West of
Margarita Road.
CHARLES ~AY provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 9:50 P.M,
ROBERT KEMBLE, Robert Bien, William Frost & Associates,
28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, representing-the
applicant, stated that they concurred with the staff's
findings and recommendations. Mr. Kemble stated that
they felt they had adequately addressed the issues and
concerns raised by staff and the Commission during the
last meeting.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the
project:
KEN RUDOLPH, 43082 torts Villa, Temecula
GARY FETCH, 43065 Vista De1 Rancho, Temecula
KEVIN PRUCHETTI, 30559 Pauba Road, Temecula
STEVE NELSON, 43015 Showalter Road, Temecula
AUDREY MEDARI8, 30601 Moontide Court, Temecula
PCbG!~/it~91
17
?.Z~,I.'~J CO)[KZeSZON NZN17TRB
IllCHilL N~DARZ2, 30601 Noontide Court, Temecula
BRIAN NANT~2, 42635 Remota Street, Temecula
NARCLI SLaVIN, 30110 La-Primavera, Temecula
~ux-OTTB LEITBIR2, 42623 Remora Street, Temecula
NABIX DUNN, 30156 La Primaware Street, Temecula
NATB DZBIABZ, 30445 Nira Loma Drive, Temecula
BOB KLEIN, 30353 Varfonda, Temecula
PNILZP 2AUM, 43209 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula
MARCIB~ HIDJES, 42808 Sota Suzanne, Temecula
-The individuals listed above strongly disagreed with
the recommendations by the staff for the following
reasons: grading, higher density, increased traffic flow,
contamination of the small lake area, etc. Narcia
Slavin, president of the Lakeview Homeowners
Association brought in water samples from the lake
which shows past and present water contamination.
ROBERT KEMBLE stated that the applicant came back to the
Commission after addressing issues and concerns raised by
the Commission in the January meeting; however,
consideration of alternative uses was not a concern the
applicant was requested to address. Mr. KembIe added that.-
the problem wi~h the lake were not as a result of the
Acacia development up stream.
COIOiZBBIONER FAHEY stated that she had expressed
concerns at the January hearing that she feels have
not been adequately addressed and added that she.
felt there was a probable inconsistency with the
future General Plan due to the proposed change in density
on a prominent ridgeling and that the requested increase
in density vs. t~he existing zoning of the project site
has the potential of a negative environmental impact that
cannot be mitigated.
Commissioner Fahey indicated that project Conditions of
Approval relating to drainage to the Lake Village area and
increased traffic flow on Pauba Road were inadequate to
mitigate potential project impacts, and concluded that she
could not support this project.
COMMZBBIONER CHINIAEFF stated that this site has
been designated residential since the early 19S0's.
Commissioner Chiniaeff also stated that he thought the
proposed lot pattern on the east side of the project
appeared strained.
PCMII~/i67~I
18
pT.li~NT~G C0~MISSlON ~TN12T~E
8wPTwM~ ~6, 1991
COMMIBSIONZa BLAIR stated that she had expressed
a number of concerns regarding the project in
January and feels they still.exist. She added
~hat she felt the lights at the Spor%s Park are
of major concern and a health consideration.
COMMISSIONZaFAHE! moved to~aJ~ Change of Zone
No. 5631 and DenvVesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320 based on the proposals being inconsistent
with the future General Plan due to the increased
density along a prominent ridgeling, the significant
grading required, and recommend ~ adoption of the
Negative Declaration due to the potential negative
impact the increased density may have on traffic and
drainage into the'Lake Village area, seconded by
COMMIBSIONEaBIalR.
COMI(ZBBZON~R CHZNZItEFF stated that he would support
the motion based on the potential grading impacts of this
proj act.
COMMISSIONER F~HEY advised that this was not a
denial for development of the proper~y; however, the '-
requested zoning should respect site limitations including
topography of the area.
AYES:' 5
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff,
Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
None
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised the public that this
would be a recommendation to the City Council and
was not a final action.
16. Va:iance No. 6
16.1 Proposal for variance in order to allow an additional
freestanding sign display in lieu of the maximum allowed
freestanding signs per Ordinance 348.
RICHARD AYALR provided the staff report.
CBAIRMANHOAGLANDopened the public hearing at 10:45 P.M.
LARRY MARKNAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, indicated
their concurrence with the staff report.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DATED
JANUARY 28, 1991
$1,~TAFFf~63"Ie=,ee
15
PLm NG CO MXSSXOI aTN T S
~NUARy 28, .m991
=OKNCaVIaiU2 advised the Cosmission that by law the
Planning Director is authorized to make an interpretation
if there is an ambiguityand.justify it through an analogy
in other provisions of the ordinance, which they had found
in other variances, C.U.P.'s, etc.
CHAI~ CHXNIAEFF indicated that he did not support the
motion to deny the extension of time and called for the
vote.
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland
NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF entertained a motion to continue Item
No. 6 and direct staff to bring ~tback and recommend an
amendment to the ordinance for Plot Plan Time Extensions·
gXRYTHOli~ILLsu9gestedthat it becontinued off-calendar
and re-notice.
COMMISSZOlF~aYaHEYmoved to continue Plot Plan 10675
Extension of Time off-calendar to allow for an ordinance
amendment which allows for Time Extensions of'Plot Plans, .'
seconded byCOMllSelOl~a!~D.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
NOES: i COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
CBAIEMaN CHINIAEFF declared a five minute recess at 7:30 P.M.
7. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21821
7.1 Proposal to subdivide 7.71 acres into five (5) single
family residential lots.
Item No. 7 continued off-calendar.
Chairman Chiniaeff stepped down due to a potential conflict of
interest on Item No. 8 and handed the gavel over to Vice Chairman
Ford.
CI~GE OF ZONE 5631 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320
Proposal to change the zoning designation of the subject
property from R-R to R-l; and subdivide the subject 56.6
acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots and
PCMIN1/28/91
-7- xl3ol91
~T.IaIIQ3:MG OOMXZBBT0]IX.,bu~.-8
~esNU'ARY 28° ~99s
4 open-Spa'De lots. Located on the North side of Pauba ~'
Road, Fast of Ynez Road.
OLrVZlMUaICXprovided the staff report.
Hr, aujica advised the Commission that staff had received
a letter from the Lake village Community Association
expressing their concern with the drainage of this
property and it's impact on the wildlife and migratory
bird population and residents of Lake Village. He added
that staff had contacted the Department of Fish and
Wildlife and they indicated that the lake was in their
Jurisdiction and all developments that may impact this
lake must be reviewed and approved by their agency.
opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M.
ROB~ItT lZ~BLB, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates,
representing the'applicant, expressed concurrence with
staff's recommendation. He stated that the applicant
was not in concurrence with Condition No. 50 requiring
approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, since
the applicant felt it was unnecessary. ~r. Kemble also
opposed Condition No. 83 regarding the public facilities"
fee, which was presented to staff and the Commission in
letter form.
MR. lO, Bedford Properties, 28765 Single Oak Drive,
Temecula, provided a brief history about the project
and answered questions presented by the Commission.
The following individuals expressed their opposition
to the development due to the negative impacts it would
have on the environment. Also they expressed a desire
to see a decrease in the density if the project were
approved; however, their recommendation was for the
City to utilize this as park land.
MARCIA SLAVEN, 30110 La Primavera, Temecula.
JAMES CONL3Y, 30369 Veronda Place, Temecula.
HAltRY SACEll, 43098 Corte Villa, Temecula.
STANLEY MEXAD, 9445 Aldabra Court, San Diego.
NATE DXBIA2I, 30445 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula.
NORMAN DUNN, 30434 Colina Verde, Temecula.
FCMXHX/28/91 -8-
I:'HILLZP 'GUM, 43209 Vj. sta De1 Rancho, Temecula.
LETTXZ BO~8, representing the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, expressed a concern for the potential
flooding of the Vail School grounds which lies just
beyond the Lake Village Lake
MR, XO presented a brief history regarding the progression
of the intended land uses from multi-family to single
family and that the lake is line with soilcement. He also
advised the residents that without this development, Pauba
Road would not be improved.
The Commission expressed a concern for speed control on
Pauba Road, comments from the Department of Fish and
Wildlife-and Regional Water~uality Control Board and the
density of the project.
COMMISSIONER NOASLAND moved to close the public hearing
at 8:50 P.M. and continue Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting
TentativeTract Map No. 25320 in order to allow staff and
the applicant the opportunity to address the environmental
concerns expressed by the Commission and th~ residents,
seconded by COMMINNIONE~ BLAIR. .-
COMMIOOIO~ FORD asked that staff address the following
issues as well: site distances approaching Pauba Road,
effects of lighting from the Sports Park, landscaping,
existing easements on the south side of Pauba Road and the
quality of water that will flow into the storm drain.
COMMIBBXONEa BOAGLAND amended his motion to include this
direction to staff with the second's concurrence.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoegland
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
3, PARCEL MAP 25607
Proposal for a two lot residential subdivision.
Located at the southeast corner of armsby-Road and Estero
Street.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report.
-9- 1/30/91
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED
SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
S~5TAFF:Flrr~631ez.ee
16
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:;
Planning Comr~ission
Gary Thornhill
September 16, 1991
Change of Zone No. 5631; and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT :)ESCRIPTION:
BACKGROUND:
RFCOMMFND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320;
2~
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and
e
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320.
Change of Zone No. 5631 is a request to
change the zoning designation of the subject
property from R-R (Rural Residential -20,000
square foot minimum lot size) to R-1 (One-
Family Residential 7,200 square foot
minimum lot size).
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposes to
subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102
single family residential lots and 4 open space lot.
On January 28, 1991, the Planning Commission
reviewed the proposal for Change of Zone No. 5631
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. At the
conclusion of the public hearing the Planning
Commission continued this item in order to allow the
Planning Staff the opportunity to address the
following issues:
S~$TAFFRrtr~I631..CZ
ANALYSIS:
Potential environmental impacts to the
lake within the Lake Village
Community;
Site distance requiremnents on Pauba
Road;
Effects of lighting from the Sports Park
on proposed project;
Existing easements on the southside of
Pauba Road; and
The quality of water that will flow into
the storm drain system.
In response to the concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of January 28,
1991,-the Planning Department Staff has analyzed
the following issues.
Potential Fnvironmental Imoacts - The Lake Village
Community Association (LVCA) identified a concern
regarding the potential environmental impacts, to the
existing habitat of their lake, caused by the surface
run-off from the proposed subdivision. The LVCA
indicated the this concern was due to the types of
chemicals (i.e. motor oil, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.)
that may run-off into their lake. Based on this input
by the LVCA, the Planning Commission directed the
Planning Staff to forward a copy of the project
information to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).
Pursuant to this direction, staff transmitted the
following material to the ACOE: 1 ) Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 25320; 2) Vicinity Map; 3) Aerial
Photograph; 4) Drainage/Hydrology Study; and 5)
An Exhibit Identifying the "Ordinary Highwater
Mark"/20-year Floodplain.
In a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers (Dated
August 14, 1991), it was determined that the
proposed project does not discharge dredged or fill
material into a water of the United States or adjacent
S~"TAFFRFT%i831 .CZ
2
CONCLUSI!ON:
wetland. Therefore the project as designed is not
subject to their jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and no Section 404 permit is
required from their office.
Run-off Water Qualiw Based on the concerns
regarding the quality of water that would flow from
the proposed project, staff transmitted the following
material to the California Water Quality Control
Board (CWQCB): 1 ) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320; 2) Vicinity Map; and 3) Drainage/Hydrology
Study.
It was determined by the CWQCB that the proposed
project would not impact the adjacent and/or
surrounding areas, nor will it impact the existing
storm drainage system.
Lightin9 from the Soorts Park - The Community
Services Department has indicated that the lighting
from the Sports Park should not impact the subject
development due to the type of lighting installed,
which is designed to minimize to glare and complies
with the Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655.
Siaht Distance on Pauba Road The Traffic'
Engineering Department has reviewed the traffic
study submitted with the proposal and has
determined that adequate sight distances are
provided.
Existing Easements on Southside of Pauba-Road -
After reviewing the properties along the s0uthside of
Pauba Road, across from the subject property, Staff
has determined that the proposed subdivision does
not interfere with any existing easements on the
southside of Pauba Road.
Based on our additional review of the project and
those issues identified, the Planning Department
Staff supports this project as designed.
S~qTAFFRPT~SI31 .CZ
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RFCOMIVU:ND ADOPTION of the Negative.
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320.
OM:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5631)
Resolution (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Conditions of Approval
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Exhibits:
A. Tentative Tract Map
Planning Commission Staff Report
(Dated January 28, 1991)
Planning Commission Minutes
(Dated January 28, 1991 )
Large Scale Plans
~'~,b'TAFFRPT~M31 .CZ 4 ~
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOL~:FIC;I~ OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1
(ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004.
accordance
Ordinances,
and manner
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5631 in
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time
prescribed by State and local law;
; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on
January 28, 1991 and September 16, 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;
: NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
i SECTION 1_=. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
s is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
$~TAFFRIrI~5631 .CZ 5
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of RiVerside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 5631 will 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 subject request is consistent with The
SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC.
b)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that an approval of such a change
from Rural Residential to One-Family
Dwellings may be consistent with the goals
and/or policies of the City's future General
Plan.
S~%'TAFFRPT%5631 .CZ
6
c)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining properties,
due to the fact that the adjoining
developments are also single family in nature
and the proposed project is consistent with
the zoning ordinance.
d)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a signfficant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed density is consistent
with the zoning ordinance.
D. Th~ Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Comoliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates That although the
proposed p~roject could have a significant impact on The environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3.~.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631 to change the zoning designation from R-R
(Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) for the subject property located on
Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
S~STAFFRPT~5631
7
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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
$~"TAFFRPT~.S831 .C:Z 8
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTI(~I OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 56.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 102 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS
LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320 in !accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on January 28, 1991 and September 16, 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 Tentative Tract Map;
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:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty '(30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the' city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
S~TAFFRPT~S831 .CZ
9
permits, each of the following:
(a) There is a reasonable probability that the land
-_ use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as. amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (heroinafter "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 Cit~/is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) 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:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is I:ittle or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
S%STAFFRPT%S631 .CZ 10 ~
{c)
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
· physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density of
the development.
e)
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
o
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public al:
large, for access through, or use of, property
within the proposed land division. A land
division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will
be provided and that they will be substantially
S~$TAFFRPT~,~631 .CZ
11
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
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 consistent with the
surrounding current residential development.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding development.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
densi~, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a design manual
will be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
S~STAFFemSe3~ .CZ 12 _.~
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.'
g)
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
h)
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from Pauba Road.
i)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps,
exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract
Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2.~. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
S~STAFF~mSe3~ .CZ 13
therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption.
SECTION-3. r-'ondffions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 for the subdivision of a 56.6 acre parcel into 102
single family residential lots and 4 open space lots located on Pauba Road and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4._,.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991.
JOHN 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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
$',$TAFFRFT~I631 .CZ 14
.' i
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED
JANUARY 28, 1991
S~$TAFFRPT~631
17
Case No.:
RecOmmendation: 1.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
-_ CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 28, 1991
Change of Zone No. 5631
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending adoption of the
Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 5631 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.-25320;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 5631; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Properties
REPRESEN'T'A.TIVE:
PROPOSAL:
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Change the zoning designation of the subject property from
R-R (Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling); and
subdivide approximately 56.6 acres into 102 single family
residential lots and 4 open space lots.
LOCATION:
North side of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and
Margarita Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
STAFFRPT~V'I'M25320 I
SWAP DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING: -_
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
2-5 DUIAC
North: R-R
South: R-1
R-R
East: R-R
West:
(Rural Residential)
(One-Family Dwellin. g) and
'(Rural Residential)
(Rural Residential)
R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
R- 1 (One-Family Dwellings)
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:.
Sports Park
Single Family Residential
Sports Park
Single Family Residential
Total Land Area:
NO. of Proposed Lots:
Min. Residential Lot Size:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Designation:
56.6 acres
102 residential
4 open space
7,200 sq.ft.
1.8 DU/AC
2-5 DU/AC
On November 14, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to the Riverside
County Planning Department, which proposed to
subdivide the subject 56.6 acre site into 103
residential lots and 4 open space lots; and Change of
Zone No. 5631.
The project was reviewed by the Riverside County
Land Division Committee (LDC) on December 14,
1989; February 1, 1990; and March 29, 1990.
During these meetings the LDC requested and
reviewed the following items:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Paleontological Survey
Biological Survey
Slope Stability Report
Traffic Study
Design Manual
STAFFRPT~V'I'M25320
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Archaeological Survey
Slope Analysis
Subsequently, this project was transferred to the
City of Temecula on April 24, 1990.
On September 13, 1990, this project was reviewed
by the Preliminary Development Review Committee
{Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project
and address any possible concerns, as well as
suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
1. Park Site Considerations
2. Maintenance of Slope Areas
3. Grading
4. Drainage
· 5. Slope Stability
6. Design Manual
7. Traffic
8. Density
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns.
On January 3, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320 was reviewed by the Formal
Development Review Committee; and~ it was
determined that the project, as designed, can be
adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to donditions.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposes to
subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102
single family residential lots, as follows:
Minimum Lot Size:
Average Lot Size:
Minimum Pad Size:
Average Pad Size:
7,200 sq.ft.
13,233 sq.ft.
6,000 sq.ft.
7,822 sq.ft.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
3
ANALYSIS:
In addition, the following open space lots are
provided:
Lot 103:
Lot 104:
Lot 105 (Slope)
Lot 106 (Accessway)
0.6 acres
0.4 acres
12.6 acres
0.3 acres
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the proposed R-1
(One-Family Dwelling) zone, as well as Ordinance
Nos, 348 and 460,
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project will have a minimal impact to the existing
road system and there will be no adverse unmitigable
significant traffic impacts resulting from the
development of this proposed project.
Land Use and 7gning
The subject site is currently vacant. Surrounding
land uses include single family residential homes to
the west (approximately 10,000 sq.ft. average lot
size) and south (1/2 and I acre lots) and the City
sports park along the north and east. The proposed
zoning (Change of Zone No. 5631) is R-1 as are the
adjacent properties to the west (Lake Village
Community). The properties to the south of the
subject site are zoned R-R and R-1.
Design Considerations
As noted above, the proposed subdivision has been
designed in accordance with the standards of the R-
I (One-Family Dwelling) zone. Due to the tracts
"vesting" status, a Development Design Manual was
submitted with this project. The design manual will
be implemented through the Conditions of Approval.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 4
Design Manual
As noted above, a development design manual will
be implemented with Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320. These guidelines have been created to
specifically address the development of this
subdivision, in order to ensure appropriate sizing and
massing of the homes in relation to the size of the
proposed lots. For example, the building height will
not exceed two-stories, with a maximum height of
35 feet; building will consist of one and two-story
elevations with staggering provided to create visual
interest and a varied street scene; and placement of
one story elements at front setbacks and corner lots.
Access and Circulation
Pauba Road will be improved along the subject site
with a half width street.
Access from Pauba Road will be provided by Streets
"A" and "B" (Lots 1-65); Street "E" (Lots 66-84);
and Street "F" (Lots 85-102). Internal circulation
will be provided by Street "A" (Lots 14-57); Street
"B" (Lots 1-13); Street "C" (Lots 58-65); Street "D"
(Lots 66-84); and Street "G" (Lots 85-102).
Grading and Landform Alteration
The project site is located within a fairly prominent
natural ridgeline and hillside of Temecula. However,
the mass grading effort was designed to adh'ere to
the gross natural topography of the site in its original
condition. While substantial grading and
recontouring of this site, which includes 540,000
c.y. of excavation and 540,000 c.y. of fill will occur
in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to
promote preservation of site topography. The
terraced landform creates view lots for a majority of
the lots within the proposed subdivision, in which
the slopes range from 25 to 85 feet in height. It
should be noted that a recommended Condition of
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
5
Approval has been included to require that all slopes
over five (5') feet in height shall be landscaped
immediately upon the completion of grading and shall
be maintained by the homeowner's association,
SlOpeS
Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are
completed on any portion of the site and shall
provide for rapid short term coverage of the slope as
well as long-term establishment cover per City of
Temecula standards.
Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in
vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than
three (3') feet in vertical height will be planted with
a ground cover to provide stability and protect the
slope from erosion. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15')
feet in vertical height will be planted with shrubs,
spaced not more than ten (10') feet on center or
trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20') feet on
center or a combination of shrubs and trees at
equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover.
Special consideration will be given to the slopes
along the northern side of the tract where a variety
of plant types and sizes will be provided for visual
and aesthetic purposes.
The plants selected and planting methods shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions. All areas
required to be landscaped shall be planted with tuff,
ground cover, shrub or tree materials selected from
the plant palette contained in the guidelines.
Drainage
The existing surface run-off currently flows towards
the west, along Pauba Road, and drains into the lake
of the Lake Village Community; and towards the
north onto the sports park and into the existing
desalination basin to the northwest of the subject
propera/.
STAFFRPT%VTM25320
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
The proposed drainage plan has been designed to
maintain the existing flows through the use of
terrace drains that will drain onto the sports park;
and a storm drain structure will be constructed from
Pauba Road along the westerly property line and into
the desalination basin, which in turn will flow into
the Lake Village Lake.
The Planning Department Staff has been contacted
by the Lake Village Community Association (letter
dated January 16, 1991 ) regarding their concerns
with potential affects of drainage and run-off from
the proposed project; and the potential impact on the
wildlife and migratory bird population residents in
Lake Village. In response to these concerns, Staff
has contacted the US Departmen..t of Fish and
Wildlife and has learned that the Lake Village Lake is
with!n their jurisdiction and all developments that
may impact this lake must be reviewed and approved
by their agency. Therefor, Staff has included a
Condition of Approval that requires the clearance
from the US Department of Fish and Wildlife, prior to
the recordation of the final map.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of 2-5 DU/AC. In addition,
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted. ~
An Initial Study was performed for this project which
determined that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment, no
significant impact would result to the natural or built
environment in the City because the mitigation
measures described in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project, and a Negative
Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
7
In o~der to ensure the implementation of the
mitigation measures adopted through the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, which in
this case is the Negative Declaration per the
Environmental Assessment, the Planning Department
Staff has included the following Condition (See
Condition No. 25) within the recommended
Conditions of Approval:
"Prior to the issuance of grading permits
and/or building permit, the developer or his
successor's interest shall submit a mitigation
monitoring program to the Planning
Department for approval, which shall describe
how compliance with required mitigation
measures will be met and the appropriate
monitoring timing of the mitigation."
In addition, pursuant to the requirements of
Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) which authorizes
the charging of certain fees for the filing of Negative
Declarations which provide funding for the
Department of Fish and Game, the Planning
Department Staff has included the following
Condition (See Condition No. 28) within the
recommended Conditions of Approval:
"Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval
of the project, the applicant/developer shall
deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers
check or money order payable to the County
Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,' Two
Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00),
which includes the One Thousand, Two
Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in
compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish
and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plu~ the
Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) County
administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public
Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal.
Code of Regulations 15075. If within such
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
8
FINDINGS:
forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the
Planning Deparlment the check required
above, the approval for the project granted
herein shall-be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c)."
Chanae of 7one No. 5631
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 5631 will 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 subject request is consistent with the
SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that an approval of such a change
from Rural Residential to One-Family
Dwellings may be consistent with the goals
and/or policies of the City's future General
Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining properties,
due to the fact that the adjoining
developments are also single family in nature
and the proposed project is consistent with
the zoning ordinance.
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, due to the
fact that the proposed density is consistent
with the zoning ordinance.
STAFFRP'I~VTM25320
9
Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 25320
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment; as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
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 consistent with the
surrounding current residential develop-ment.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding development.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a design manual
will be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
STAFFRPT'~VTM25320
10.
11.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy COntTOI opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open To, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from Pauba Road.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
· The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents'
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT~.VTM25320
11
STAFF RFCOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
IIm ·
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
adoption of' the Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320·
OM:ks
Attachments:
Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5631)
Resolution (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Conditions of Approval
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320)
Environmental Assessment
Lake Village Community Association Letter
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. SWAP Map
D. Tract Map
E. Building Envelope Plan
F. Cross Sections Base Map
G. Cross Sections
H. Design Manual
Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT~V'FM25320
12
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1
(ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004.
accordance
Ordinances,
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5631 in
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
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
January 28, 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;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1._:. Findinas. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a-newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 13
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
pe. rmits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability .that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: '
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 5631 will 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 subject request is consistent with The
SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC.
b)
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that an approval of such a change
STAFFRPT~V'I'M25320
14
from Rural Residential to One-Family
Dwellings may be consistent with the goals
and/or policies of the City's future General
Plan.
c)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining properties,
due to the fact that the adjoining
developments are also single family in nature
and the proposed project is consistent 'with
the zoning ordinance.
d)
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, due to the
fact that the proposed density is consistent
with the zoning ordinance.
D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Comoliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of Change of Zone No. 5631 to change the zoning designation from R-R
(Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) for the subject property located on
Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 1991.
STAFFRPT%VTM25320
15
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 16 ,_~
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 56.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 102 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS
LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
: WHEREAS, the Planning-Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on January 28, 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 Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1_. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty/'(30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 17
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
{a) There is a reasonable probability that the land
use or action proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temacula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the
boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion
with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) 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:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 18 _~,.
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
· proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density of
the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not ilkely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 19
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of, property
within the proposed land division. A land
division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will
be provided and that they will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study
performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
c)
d)
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 consistent with the
surrounding current residential develop-ment.
There is not a likely probability of substantial
detriment to, or interference with, the future
adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
surrounding development.
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for
the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule
A.
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 20 _~.
e)
f)
g)
h)
j)
k)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in Terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density, due to the fact that the project has
access to public roads and a design manual
will be implemented with this project.
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidable injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat as determined in the
initial study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard To future
passive energy control opportunities due to
the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing and
proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are
open To, and are useable by, vehicular traffic,
access is provided from Pauba Road.
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as
conditioned. The project will not interfere
with any easements.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT%:VTM25320
21
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract
Map is compati. b|e with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 for the subdivision of a 56.6 acre parcel into 102
single family residential lots and 4 open space lots located on Pauba Road and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4_...
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of ~he Commission:
STAFFRPT~VTM 25320 22
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRP~VTM 25320 23
CITY OF TEMECULA
-~ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No:
25320
Project Description: Subdivide 56.6 Acres
into 10.~ Residential Lots and 4 Open Space
I ors
Assessor's Parcel No.:
945-050-004
Planninc3 Deoartrnent
The tentative subdivision shall' comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance
460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the
requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance
460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer and
two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address
the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
STAFFRPT%VTM25320
24
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force unt. il the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall-be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc.,
shalli be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and
recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
m
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to
all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose
of the subdivision approval.
A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 103
through 106. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay
for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
a. ; Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1.
C®
Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated
according to the City Development Code. An erosion control landscaping plan
demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared
by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Planning
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated December 4,
1990, a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
_. STAFFRPT~VTM25320 25
15.
16.
'Southwest Area Plan.
Lots created by_this-~ubdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone as
provided in the tract's approved Development Design Manual.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of
Building and Safety.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are
the responsibilities of Other parties as approved by the Plannini] Director.
17.
18.
19.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS)
shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified
environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the
City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded
with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the
Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
"This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute
of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 26
20.
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
2. _ - A~proximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March·
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to
the angle of the natural terrain.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall
reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved
in a continuous, undulating fashion.
Ca
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-sita manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 27
21.
'Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans' shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the
following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility' service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Pauba Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the
perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from
the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance
aCCeSS.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-
of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 28
bo
do
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subj.ect property shall be shown on the project's grading plans
and shalL note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit
within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest
provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures.
A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited
with the City as mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and
Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer
to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to
individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior
noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard
landscaping.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices
shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall comply
with the tract's approved Design Manual.
All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the tract's approved
design manual.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually
operated permanent underground irrigation system.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
29
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plot plan shall be submitted
to the Planning. Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No.
348 accompaRied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted
to any governmental agency other than the Riverside County Planning
Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site
development with the tract's approved Design manual, and shall contain
the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback,
and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots.-
One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x
13 inches by 318 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer-and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product
numbers where possible {trade names also acceptable).
e
One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Six (6) copies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8
x 10. inches) of both color and materials board and colored
.architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review
and agency distribution. All writing must be legible.
Said. plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot
plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits
may be phased provided:
1. A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by
appropriate filing fees.
Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included
within that plot plan.
STAFFRPT~V'FM25320
30
22.
23.
24.
25.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
ao
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal.
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study
is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required
walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a
Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation
Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to
attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract
Map, No. 25320, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider 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 subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
The ,developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 31
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
Section.66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required
for the improvemere. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-sits property
interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security Of a portion of
these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required,
and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provided. Telephone, cable 'FV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in
the residence.
Prior to recordat/on of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must
conform to the park district Quimby .Ordinance, unless waived to time of
issuance of a building permit.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps.
The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the
open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all
buildings.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the
right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have
any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in
the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses
of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of
said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate
under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet
changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall
permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions
of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale.
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
32
This Condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
31.
Every owner of 3 dv~lling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, .or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
32.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, .including parkways, shall be
provided for in the CC&R's.
33.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two: Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
Riverside COunw Fire Department
34.
Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2")
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart
in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from
a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
PSI.
35.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer,
containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed
by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
36.
The :required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
STAFFRPT%VTM25320
33
37 .
All buildings shall be constructed with: fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall-have_ a Class "B" rating :and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
38.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as
mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the
time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County
deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit.
Riverside County Department of Public Health
39.
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the water Company and the Health Department. Permanent prints
of the plans of the-Water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a
minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original
drawing to the County surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe
diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and
the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the
California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of
the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "1
certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25320 is in
accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California
Water District and that the water service, storage, and distribution system will
be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map."
40.
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to
such tract map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection
or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a 'responsible
official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the County
Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the
recordation of the final map.
41.
This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing
to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand
providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the
recordation of the final map.
STAFFRP'I'%VTM25320 34
42.
This subdivision is within the Eastem Municipal Water District and shall be
connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed
according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the
sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing,
to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the
size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system.
A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion
of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered
engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that
the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 25320 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that
the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated
wastes from the proposed tract map.'
43.
The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least
two weeks prior To the request for the recordation of the final map.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Pauba Road along the project frontage.
including any transitions. Signing plans only shall be required for internal
Streets A through G. These plans shall be included with the street
improvement plans.
45.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
46.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour
or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
47. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping
STAFFRP'I~VTM25320 35
plan. --
Engineering Deoartment -_
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project,
and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
48.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
49.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil
Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
50.
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
Parks and Recreation .Department; and
US Department of Fish and Wildlife.
51.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
52.
Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County STandard No. 102 (64'/88').
STAFFRPT%VTM25320
36
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Street "A" from Pauba Road to Street "B", Streets "B", 'E", and 'F" shall be
improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street
improvements may I~ posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 104, Section A (40'/60').
Street 'A" east of Street "B", Streets "C", "D", and "G" shall be improved with
36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for The street improvements
may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 105, Section A (36'/60').
Curb return radii of 35' feat shall be installed at the intersection of Street "F"
and Street "G".
VehiCular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road and so noted on the final
map with the exception of street intersections as approved by the City
Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.;
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engir~eer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by
all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall
make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's
shall be subject to the following conditions:
The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such
provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem
necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with
the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all slope areas within the
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 37
59.
60.
61.
subdivision.
All slopesaxce~ding 5' in height shall be maintained by me homeowners
association.
The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated
and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by fie CC&R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property' and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon
by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to
a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly
reimbursed.
All parkways, open areas,' and landscaping shall' be permanently
maintained by homeowner's association or other means
acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be
submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to
issuance of building permits.
A Notice of Intention to form and/or join the Landscape and Lighting District
shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District
information shall be borne by the developer.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
STAFFRPT%VTM25320
38
62.
63.
City iEngineer.,
Prior to recorda~on-~f fie final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of .issuance of a
building permit.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All
drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be
contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be
added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
STAFFRP'I'~VTM25320
39
If required after approval of fie final drainage report, a drainage easement shall
be obtained from the affected property owners for the release or concentrated
or diverted storm flo~vs onto the adjacent property. If a drainage easement
cannot be obtained from the property owners adjacent to Lot 20, then the
storm drain system shall be designed to outlet north of Lot 30 into the existing
drainage basin.
73.
All lots containing storm drains for public use shall contain a dedicated
easement for storm drain purposes and provide for an access road to the storm
drain outlet.
74.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
75.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the
Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of
street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
76.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
77.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
78.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
79.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 40
80.
PRIOR
81.
82.
83.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City G. rading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough
grading plan.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter,
A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on
all interior public streets.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
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,
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
publi,c 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. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of
those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase.
STAFFRPT~V'FM25320
41
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
F!~ CH!?-CKIJST
CITY OF ~
DEVRI,OPMENT FRR C]tY~CKIJ,qT
CASE NO.:Chan~e of Zone 5631-Vestinr Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
The following fees were reviewed by Staff rehtive to their applicability to this project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 23
Condition No. 27
Condition No. 80
Condition No. 62
Condition No. 21.b
Condition No. 38
Condition No. 78
N/A
NO
S\STAFFRPT~B631 .CZ
32
ATTA~ NO. 9
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backaround
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental.
Assessment:
Bedford Prooerties
28765 Single Oak Drive
Temecula. CA 92390
(714} 676-5641
January7. 1991
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TFMECULA
5. Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
6. Location of Proposal:
North Side of Pauba Road. between
Ynez and Margarita Roads
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Yes
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? _
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil? X
Mavbe
X
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 42
Substantial change in topography
or. ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
X
X
2. .Air.
8,
bm
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of The
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
Yes
Mavbe
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTIV125320 43
be
ee
fe
movemenlo, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity? X
Alteration ofthe direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
gs
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
he
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
X
X
Yqf
X
Mavbe
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 44
Reduction of the numbers of any
un. ique, rare, or endangered species
of.plants?
Ce
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop? __
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
X
X
X
X
.. X
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
Ye~
X
Mavbe
X
X
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 45
10.
11.
12.
13.
planned land use of an area?
Nazura[ hesources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of'hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'X
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Ye~
Maybe
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 46
14.
16.
Substantial impact upon existing
tr.ansportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
aa
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 47
Power or natural gas?
17.
18.
19.
20.
b.' Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
--.or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
X
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
YeS Mavbe
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRP'I~VTM25320 48
prehistoric or historic building,
st]'.ucture, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
To cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
ae
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.) _
Ce
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? '(A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
Yes
X
Mavbe
X
.X
X
X
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 49
is signfficant.) _ X _
d. - - D~es the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 50
III
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.6.
'DiscMssion of the Environmental EvaluatiOn
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes
540,000 cubic yards of excavation and 540,000 cubic yards of fill.
However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation
measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will not
create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic substructure.
Yes. The proposed development disrupts the soil profile and results in
soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However, a slope
stability report was prepared for this project, in which specific
recommendation were made in order to develop the project. Therefore,
this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval. include mitigation measures in regards to all
grading.
Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural ridgeline
and hillside of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was
designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its
original condition. While substantial grading and recontouring of this
site, which includes 540,000 c.y. of excavation and 540,000 c.y. of fill,
will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote
preservation of site topography. Therefore, this impact is not considered
significant.
Ma~/be. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted
and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion
impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use of
watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after
f~rading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices
will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in
accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact
that appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 51
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a.
2.b,c.
Water
3.a,d.
3.b.
project.
'Yes. Altbougi~_ the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream
bed, the lake for Lake Village is located to the west of the project which
may be impacted by the development of this project. However, in order
to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the
proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District has indicated that Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 25320 will be required to pay a flood mitigation charge, which
has been included as a Condition of Approval. Therefore, this impact is
not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The subject site is not located within a subsidence or
liquefaction zone and is not subject to liquefaction and subsidence by the
Riverside County General Plan. However, to mitigate any potential
hazards, a geological report will be prepared prior to any construction of
the property. The report will include mitigation measures. Therefore,
this impact is not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The proposed project consisting of 102 residential units will
generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle
trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the
area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is
currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential impact
is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by itself
deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add .to the
cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the
area.
No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or alter
the area's climate.
No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern will be altered,
especially along the northern property line. However, water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets through drainage facilities
STAFFRPT%VTM25320
52
3.c.
3.e.
3.f.
3.g.
and control devices which will have to be approved by the City Engineer
and designed. in accordance with Temecula's Standards and the
Conditions of-Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
Yes. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood
channels. The lake within the Lake Village Community may be impacted.
by the development of this project. However, in order to mitigate the
downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the proposed drainage
facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (the District) has indicated that the project will be required to pay
a flood mitigation charge (Area Drainage Plan fee), which has been
included as a Condition of Approval. In addition, the Department of Fish
and Game has indicated that the project must be reviewed by their Staff.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project.
Drainage plans for the. site will have to meet the requirements of the
City's Engineer.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity in
local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the
City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
No. 'The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground water.
No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the
landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the
ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
3.h.
3.i.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water
supply.
Maybe. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which
require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
53
Vec)etation
4..a,c.
4.b.
4.d.
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project.
Yes. The proposed project involves a mass grading of the subject site
which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal
includes landscaping and erosion control which will be designed to City
standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on-
site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
Wildlife
5.a,c. No.
5.b. Maybe.
A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this
project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no
individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found there
is no occupied habitat within the bounds of the tract map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a
taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the
species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding
lands to the north, south, east and west have previously
been developed at urban levels of use or are presently being
developed at such levels of use, preservation of this site as
a reserve is inappropriate. in addition, the site is now
isolated from all other known colonies by impassable
residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is
virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as
proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation
other than payment of fees under the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat Fee Ordinance is required.
~ STAFFRP'D, VTM25320 54
Noise'
6.a-b.
No. A noise a~sessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site 'is exposed to significant levels of
noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it is
concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will comply
with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation
standards.
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the' project
be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure compliance
with the County's noise standards.
Light and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
Natural ReSources
9.a-b.
No..This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
nal:ural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of UpSet
lO.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response plan
or an emergency evaluation plan.
PoDulation
STAFFRPT~VTM25320
55
11.
Housing
12.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 102 lots,
the' proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation
which all{xws a ~naximum of 283 lots (according to SWAP). Therefore,
this impact is not considered to be significant.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
Transportal;ion/Circulation
13.a. Yes.
13.b-e. No.
13.f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant. in addition, appropriate mitigation measures
have been implemented through the Conditions of
Approval.
Public Services
14.a-e.
14.f.
Yes.
No.
The proposed project will have significant adverse effect
effect on public services. However, these impacts are not
considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented through the Conditions
of Approval.
Energy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Hezllth
STAFFRPT%VTM25320 56
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Yes. The proposed project will result in an impact upon existing
recreational opportunities. However, the proposed project provides
adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents and appropriate
Quimby fees will be paid. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d. No impact.
Mandatory: Findings of Significance
21 .a.
Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees for
the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition,
during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
21 .b.
Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals: However,
no significant impacts will occur if ~e mitigation measures are followed.
21 .c.
Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental
effects. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation
measures are followed.
21 .d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
STAFFRP~VTM25320 57
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
January 7. 1991
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT~VTM25320 58
ATTA~ NO. 10
.IC.,XH!!~
CITY OF TEMECULA '~
Project Si~~ r.~ ~' - i
VICINITY MAP
CASE No."'/~'5:~f-Z;'
CITY OF TEMECULA ")
COMMUNITY
IARGARITA VILLAGI
SP 19't
/
.1 AC
SP 180
,/
SWAP MAP
;,.c. eATS I- ~'
CITY 'OF TEMECULA ~ "
_ ".
R-i ~ ~n
I ¢z ~827
~~,~,~
-2 1/2
2200
CASE
ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE I"~'~I
,
ITEM NO.
15
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SET:
APPROVAL
CITY ATI'ORNEY ' ~/'
FINANCE OFFICER ~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEME~
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning DeparUnent
June 23, 1992
Appeal No. 26 (Appeal of Condition of Approval No. 24 requiring a block wall
along the southern and northern portions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2,
Revised No. 1.)
RECO1VIMV, NDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City Council:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ denying Appeal No. 26 based on
the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on
September 17, 1990. Conditional Use Permit No. 2 is an approval for a multi-tenant automotive
center with 21,117 square feet of service area and 8,224 square feet of retail area. On October
9, 1990, the City Council approved a motion to Receive and File Conditional Use Permit No.
2. Under this approval, Conditional Use Permit No. 2 was valid until October 9, 1991. The
applicant submitted a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 2 on April 26, 1991. This was
a request to increase the mount of service area from 21,117 square feet to 21,458 square feet
and to increase the mount of retail space from 8,224 to 8,663 square feet. On June 17, 1991
the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1. The revision
to Conditional Use Permit No. 2 did not extend the life of the original approval. The applicant
submitted an application for an Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised
No. 1 prior to the expiration date of the original approval. The Extension of Time was
subsequently scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing.
Prior to the Planniog Commission hearing, the applicant met with Planning Staff to discuss the
possibility of utilizing landscaping as screening instead of the block wall along the southern and
northern portions of the site referenced by Condition No. 24. It was Staffs opinion that the use
of landscaping was a viable option and it was recommended that Condition of Approval No. 24
of Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 be replaced with the following condition:
"Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape screening plan
for approval by the Planning Director. Said landscape plan shall contain a combination of
shrubs, trees and fences. ~
The Planning Commission, as a whole, did not support Staff' s recommendation based upon their
concern for the adequate screening of the service bay area (rcfcrcncc Attachmcnt No. 3,
planning Commission Minutes of April 6, 1992). Commissioners Fahcy and Blair stated that
the applicant bad requested a reduction in thc lcngth of the wall on thc northern and southcrn
portions of the site under Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1. The Commission
granted the reduction, but felt that the present request would climinatc the minimum amount of
screening necessary. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2,
Revised No. 1, Extension of Time with a 5-0 vote, with no modification to Condition of
Approval No. 24. The applicant has appealed thc Planning Com_mission's decision relative to
Condition No. 24, to the City Council and still contends that landscaping can accomplish the
same screening as the block wall (reference Attachment 6).
Fiscal Impact
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
City Council Resolution - page 3
Conditions of Approval - page 7'
Planning Commission Minutes - page 8
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 9
Fee Checklist - page 10
Initial Study - page 12
CorrespOndence/Petitions - page 13
.Exhibits - page 14
S'~S~'rAlq~"il~r'~]6Alq~'F_4d.,.C~C~ 2
ATTA~ NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9~
ATTA:CEMm NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOL~ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING
APPEAL NO, 26 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ~ WEST
SIDE OF YN!~.z ROAD AND ~ EAST SIDE OF
INTERSTATE 1~, APPROXIMATI~J,Y 200 FI~.I?.T NORTH OF
~ INTERSECTION OF YNF_Z ROAD AND SOLANA WAY
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARC~.I. NO. 921-080-0~4.
WH!~RE&S, J. Larry Gabele fried an Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No.
2, Revised No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WIlERE&S, said Extension of Time application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local hw;
WI:W.~, the Planning Commission considered said Extension of Time for
Conditional Use i permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 on April 20, 1992, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WItERI~.~S, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended appwval of said Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1, Revised
No. I subject to sthe Conditions set forth in Attachment 2;
WHEREAS, Appeal No. 26 was fried in the time and manner prescribed by State and
local law pertaining-to the Planning Commission's approval of Extension of Time for
Conditional Use ~Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1; specifically rehting to Condition Number 24
pertaining to six foot high decorative block wall requirement along a potion of the northern and
southern property lines;
Wltl~,REAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal No.
26 on June 23, 1992 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition of said Appeal; and
W!~-REAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ CITY COUNCH, OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Findings.
findings:
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the tit 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, ff all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The City Council in recommending denial of Appeal 26 makes the following
additional fmdings, to wit:
1. There is a reasonable probability that Appeal No. 26 will be inconsistent
with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the Appeal, if upheld,
would result in improvements that are inconsistent with improvements currently existing for
other similar developments in the area. Other auto oriented uses in the area currently have block
walls to screen their service areas.
2. The condition for a block wall stated in the project's Conditions of
Approval is deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general weftare. ff left
unscreened, the service bays would Create unaesthetic views from Ynez Road.
3. Said findings axe supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Section H. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula City Council hereby
determines that Appeal No. 26 is a Statutory Exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section
15270(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section IH. The City Clerk shah certify the adoption of this resolution.
DENIED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSP, IJo
MAYOR
I Hi~ERY 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 23rd day of June,
1992 by the fcalowing vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNTERS:
COUNCIII4EMBERS:
COUNTERS:
S~qTAI:r~PHAL-CC 6
ATTACH1VfF, NT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATI'A~ NO.2
crryoF~
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Tune
Project DestritOn: ~ion of 'T~m~ for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. I an
spproved Conditional Use Permit_ for a multi-tenant
automotive center with 8,663 square feet of're tall
area and 21,4:58 square feet of serv~ area.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-080-054
Commission AllyroYal: April 20, 1992
Expiration Date: October 9, 1992
The Use hereby permit~d by this Enension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2,
Revised No. 1, is for a multi-tenant automotive center with 8,663 square feet of retail
area and 21,458 square feet of senrice area.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agehiS, officers, and employees from any c|aims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officon, 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. I Extension of Txme. The
City of Temecula wffi 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 appwval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial comaion
contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utiliT~tion contemphted by this
approval. This approval shall expire on October 9, 1992.
In the, event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or
more, this appwval shall become null and void.
swra~ns,n2-at.an, 11
m
10.
11.
12.
13.
The development of ttz premises shall conform substantially with t!~ as shown on
Conclifton1 Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 ~ of Tune marked Exhibit D, or
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 ~ion of Tune shall comply with any
and all Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 (unless supcnedsd by these Conditions of Approval).
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and dirsctsd so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining pto~j or public fights-of-way. All sum lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans su~ to the Delmmnent of Building and Safety
for plan check appwval and shall comply with the requirements of Rivehide County
Ordln.m'e No. 655. (Condition No. 7 will superrote Condition No. 6 d the City of
Temecuh Conditions of Appmv~ for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 ).
The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Dq~artment's Conditions of Approval
which are included heroin.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated Novctnber 14, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Tnnsimmtion tmmmiu~ dated November 6, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated November 1.9, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Design and
location of the turnout shah be as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the 'issuance of building penttits, three (3) copies of a Paridng, T ~nciscaping,
IrrigatiOn, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Departments for appwval.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown.
Plans shall meet all requirements of Oniinnce No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be
accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. (Condition No. 12 will supersede Condition
No. 16 of the City of Temecuh Conditions of Appwval for Conditional Use Permit No.
2, Revised No. 1).
Prior W the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits. from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Rivehide County Flood Control
Fire Department
Public Works Depamnent
Bflvironmental Health
Eastern Municipal Water District
(Condition No. 13 will supenede Condition No. 19 of Conditions of Appwval for
Conditional Use Pertnit No. 2).
swr~.~J,r~-tLcu~ 12
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shB be submitted and approved by the
P ' DireeWr prior to occupancy. (Condition No. 14 will supersede Condition No.
2~ of ~ for Conditional Use Permit No. 2).
Builclinlg elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E.
Mateiisl.~ used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conforlnance
with that shown on Exhibit E (Color Blevations).
All existing spechnm Ueei on the subject prop~ty shall be preserved win'ever feasible.
Where they cannot be preserved they shsll be relocated or replaced with specimen trees
as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by tmying the fe~ %alah~ by that ordi~nee which is based on (the gross acreage
of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single fnmily residential units
on lots lwhich are a minimum of one-half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance
No. 663 be superseded by the pwvisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the
payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee
required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolutiOn. (Condition No. 18 will supersede Condition No. 33 of Conditions of
Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2).
Prior to the sale or lease of any strumre as shown on l~wised Exhx~it D, a land division
shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other
pertinent ordinance.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interestS, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior
w submittal for building permit, enter inW an agreement to complete the impwvements
pursuant W Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the
property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for
payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City w acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the pwject. Security for a portion of these costs
shall .be in the form of a cash deposit in the mount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at the developer' s cost. The appraiser shall have been appwved by the
City prior W commencement of the appraisal.
swr~,n,~-aLaa, 13
Pt,qJLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The fortowing are the Departmeat of Public Works Conditions d Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All que,~ons regarding the true
meaning of thS conditions sisall be referred to the apptop, late staff personnel of the Department
of Public Works. All in~-vious Conditions of Approval imposed against this pwject shall re!pain
in effect except as superseded or aretaxied by tins requirenears.
It is understood that the Developer correaly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed roseSnears, traveled ways, improvement constrslnts and drainage courses, and their
omission may irequire the project to be resu~ for further review and revision
PRIOR TO BUrt-r~ING PBRMrF ISSUANCI~
22.
Dev~ shall pay any cspial fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the pn4nny or prejea, including that for tmff~ and public facility mitigation as
requirsd under the EIR/N~ Declar~ticm for the projea. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amOmlt in effect at the time of payme!It of the fee. If an interim or final public
facility mitiEation fee or district has not been fimlly established by the date on which
developer requests its building permits for the projea or any phase thereof, the developer
shall execute the Agreemeat for paymeat of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been
provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreemeat, developer shall
post a bend w secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The mount of the bend shall
be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said
Agreeram my require the project in the mount of such fees). By execution of thi.~
Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of thi.~ Condition,
of this Agreement, the formation of any tnffic impact fee district, or the procen, levy,
or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffxc impact fee for thi,~ pwject; pwvided that
developer is not waiving its fight w protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee,
and the amount thereof.
swravvru-m.aw 14
~TATE OF CAIJ~.t~ILA. IV~o TItAN~:~RTATIO~ AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
November 6, 1991
Development Review
08-Riv-15-5 · 96/6.0
Your Reference:
C.U.P. No. 2
Planning .Department
City Hall
City of Temecula
Attention Mr. Mark A. Rhoades
43174 BuSiness Park Drive
Temecula,t CA 92590
Dear Mr. Rhoades:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 located at the northwest corner of
Solana way and Ynez Road in the oity of Temecula.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments
have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, theidevelopermust obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mrs.
Minerva Rodriquez of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-
4384.
Very. truly yours,
Development Review Engineer
Riverside Oounty
Attachment
CONSTRUCTI01i/De4OLITIOIi WITHIN FtESEHT OE PR~M)SED STATE RIGHT OF MAT SHOULD BE II~ESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL
NAZJUU)OJS HASTE ( i* E.ASBESTOSt PETROCHEMICALSr ETC. ) AND MITIGATED AS PER REOUIREMENTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES.
WHEN PLANS HIE SIJIMtTTEDr PLEASE COIiFOIJ4 TO THE REOUIEEHEHTS OF THE ATTACHED fiNANDoUTH o THIS WILL EXrcOlTE
THE REVIEV PROCISS AND TIME REElteD FOe PLAN CHEC2:. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT,
ALTHOUGH THE ;TRAFFIC AIiD/Oe DRAINAGE GENENATED BY THIS pEOPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
0N THE STATE HIGINAY BYS~t CZMSIDERATIOli IIJST HE GIVEN TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF COHTIHUED DEVELOPMENT
IN THIS AREA, ANY MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE I3JNULATIVE IHPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/0e DRAINAGE SHALL BE
PROVIDED PRIGit TO Oe WITH DEVELCN4EHT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEM,
C~HSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVER TO THE PROVISIOIIt Oe FUTURE PROVISIOttr OF SIGMILIZATION ~ LIGHTING OF THE
JU~ TIE STATE HIGWd~Y MEN IdtJVLQfTS
TT APPEARS THAT THE TIUkFFIC AND/Or DNAINAGE GEHENATED BY THIS PROPOSAL CCX.ILD NAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON
"' THE STATE HIGHVAT SYSTEM OF THE ARF. A, AH~ 14EAF~ES TO MITIGATE THE TNAFFIC AND/GO .DNAINAGE INPACTS SHALL BE
INCLUOED WITH THE DEVELOPHEWT~.
THIS P0eTIGIi OF THE STATE HIGHMAT IS INCLUDED IN THE CALIFOeNIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGHVATS ELIGIBLE
OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHHAT DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YCUt AGENCY MAY WISH TO RAVE THIS it~FTE OFFICIALLY
DESIGHATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY-
THIS PC~TI(~I OF THE STATE HIGle, AT HAS SEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY., AHO DSVSLC)P~Ek'T
IN THIS CQRRZDC3e SHOULD BE CO4PATIBLE WITH THE SCENIC NIGHVAT C13fiCEPT-
TT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CCMSIDERABLE MLIC C:13NCERN AB~JT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILT TNAVELLED
HIGiadAYS- LAND DEVELOPt4BIT r IN OItOER TO BE C:64PATIBLE gITH THIS COICERH~. RAY REOUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTEllU&TI;
MEASURES- DEVELOPHENT OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUOE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION-
CALT~ANS DtSTNtCT 8
P.O. Be~ 231
SAM BEHNAROINO, CA 92402
A COPY OF4AHY COIil)ITIGNS OF AMOVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL,
A cOPY OF AMY DOCUMENTS pROVIDING ADOZTIOIIAL STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY UPON RECOi~ATION OF THE NAPe
ANY PROPCIGALS TO FURTHER DEVELC)P THIS pROI~RTY.
COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIIL~IMENTAL SHY- "
CHEC~ PRINT OF THE PARCEL Ot TRACT MAP.
CHECI: MINT OF T~ ~S F~ ~Y I~MMTS VITMIN ~ ~JA~T TO THE ~TA~ HIGMT
CHECK PRINT OF THE ~ING I ~1~ P~S F~ THIS PR~R, MR AVAriCE-
~ZOU!t Z:bEFEREliCE
TE ~a(}~BST TAT THE
APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT:
NOiU4AL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE
/
DATE
( Co RTE PM)
ITEMS CHECl~D BELOW BB INCL13DED IN THE CONDITIONS OF
HALF--WIDTH ON TIE STATE HIGNUAY.
Nof~taL STI~ET. IMPtOWPathS TO PROVIDE
HALF'-WlDTH ON TIE STATE HIGHVAT.
Chll AND GUTTER# STATE STAI)AD # TYPE ALONG TIE. STATE HIGHVAT.
PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE elGlllkY IT PAINTING TIE CUll lED AND/ON BY THE PROPER PLACFJ4B4T
OF NO PARKIHG SiONS-
RADIUS CHIll RETURNS SHALL BE PITOVIDED AT lITERSECTIONS WITH TIE STATE HIEMY. STATE STANDARD V!(EELCHAIR
RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CUltS RETURNS,
A POSITIVE VIEHICIAJUt BARRIER ALONG TIE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PIOVZDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL AC~S$ TO THE
STATE HIGIS/AY.
VEHICULAR ACCESS SItALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO TIE. STATE HIGHgATe
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PItWIDE) BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONHECTIONS~
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE KIGHUAY .SHALL BE PROVIDED BY STANDARD DRIVEVATS.
VE~IC3J,~ ~ S~LL NOT B~ PRC~II~ I,,'ITHIN __
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE. STATE HIGifJAT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY 'A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION.
VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST WITHIN TIE STATE NIGHWAY lIGHT OF VAT,
AcCEss PoINTS TO THE STATE HIGINAT SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WiLL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTAI~ FOe ,
HPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY.
LANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY SMALL PROVIDE FOr SAFE SIGHT DISTARCE~ COMPLY WITH FIXED ONJECT SET lACK
AND BE TO STATE STANDARDSIn
A LEFT--TURN LAKE# IMCt, t~lNG SHaJLDERS AND ANT NECESSARY MZDENINGa~ SHALL BE PtOVTDED ON TIE STATE NIGMY o
A TRAFFIC STLX)Y INDICATING ON ANO OFF~ITE FLW PATTERNS AND VOLtJqES; PROSAILE IMPACTS ANO Pi~ NITIGAiICII
IEASUIES SMALL BE PREPARED,
PARKING SMALL BE DEVELOPED IN A 14ANNER THAT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY V~HII3JLA.q lt3VEXENT CONFLICTSt IHCILI)ING PARlING
STALL EMTII.~JiCE ANO EXITt WITHIll OF THE ENTRANCE FP.(14 THE STATE NIGHWAY,
Q. JUtE SHALL BE TAICEN WHEN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTT TO PIESERVE AIID PERPETUATE TIE EXISTING DHAIIIAGE PATTEIN
OF TIE STATE HIGHWAY, PARTI(3R. JUt CI:XISIDERATION SItClAD BE GIVEN TO C3J4R. ATIVE INI::I~EASED STOIU4 RUNDFF TO INiLIUE
THAT A KIGW, iAY DRAINAGE PROGLEN IS NOT CP. EATEB,
Pt~.ASE REFER TO ATTACHED AOOITXC3mU. CCleqENTS. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT.
Date: .November 19,1991
RIV-15-5.96/6.0
(Co-Rte-PH)
C.U.P. No. 2
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL CO~4ENTS:
Our Hydraulics Engineers were unable to perform a complete review of the
attached material because of insufficient data. Please provide the
following information:
1. provide information on existing drainage facilities both upstream
and downstream of proposal.
2. Provide proposed drainage plan of property to be developed.
Include analysis of impacts of proposed drainage plan on existing
facilities, if any.
R IwAg RiVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
18~.5 'tHIRD STREFF, RIVEA..c.c.c.c.c.c.~, CA 92507-3484 · BUS. 0'14} 684-0850 FAX 0,14] 684-1007
November 19, 1991
Mr. Mark Rhoades
Temecula]Planning Department
City of Temecula
43174 BuSiness Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: CUP # 2
Dear Mark:
We currently provide service to the site mentioned above via Route
23 and we are requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus stop
be incorporated into the general design as the size of the planned
project will negatively impact our level of service unless this
amenity is constructed,
An ideal location for the bus turnout would be on westside corner
of Ynez Road midblock Ynez Auto Center, past the monument sign.
If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian walkway
and wheelchair curb be provided near the turnout location specified
above. I can indicate the exact location for the turnout as the
project.progresses-
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. Your efforts to keep us updated on the status of this
request will be very much appreciated. Please let us know when
this project will be completed-
Should you require addltion~l information or specifications, please
don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Transit Planner
BB: jsc
PDEV#120
Bo~d dDinetmx
9alpk E. Daily
Csusbs F. Ko
k vb.,
almA.
Deetim V. Kuibetg
deflNy L. Mjak~r
9teldmm M,
Rielma'd D, Stsffey
OfficerE
john F. Hennigsr
Gawal MsmSef
Phillip L, FoM
Dwee~r of Finsnee-
Tkomas R, MP. ABe~r
Edwsrd P. Lmmm
D~ds*seseensS
Perry R. Lad
roemdk, r
Liada M, !rrefoeo
MeCorm/ck. Kidran
i Bskress
November 14, 1991
Mr. Mark Rhoadcs
City of Tcmccula
PDnning Departlnent
43180 Business Paxk Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Water Availability
APN 921-080-054
CUP No. 2 Bxtcnsion of
Auto Service Center"'
Dear Mr. Rhoadcs:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner siSruing an
Agen~ A~reement which assi~.s water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Dohcrty.
S~cercly,
RANCHO CALIFOKNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
SB:SD:ajw217
lira,the Carlfoam Water i)istnct
;2O6l DiatRoad , PdsOfficeBox~,)!7 · Te. mecv~.~ahlm'nmE~af~'~1017 , ,~4,476410| · FAXaTI4,6.'~M15
SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
gas
COMPANY
111 I,,,UGONIA AW. NUF. REDLANDS,. CALIFORNIA
MAIUNQ ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3003, REDLANDS. CALIFORNIA r23"rJ-O306
November 18, 1991
Ci=y of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92596
ATTENTION, Planning Department
RE= .~.,.U.P.-Nov. 2, Extension of Time
In response to your request for a Letter of Non-In=erference,
=he SoUthern California Gas Company maintains no facilinies or
easements in ~he area of the above-described project.
TherefOre, we have no interest or commen=s relative ~o ~he
project in question.
rn~ ~
~echnical Supervisor
JA/blh
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDIT/ONAL USE PEEVI1T NO. 2, REVISED NO. 1
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 2
Formerly Plot Plan No. 11694
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
October 9. 1990
October 9.1991
Planning De;Lament
1. The t~se hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for an automotive
center with 21,458 square feet of service area and 8,663 square feet of retail
area .;
2. 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 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 Conditional User
Permit No. 2. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate-fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully
in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant
the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within
the One (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion,
or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
The ~development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit 3, or as amended by these conditions.
J
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1)
year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
STAFFRPT%CUP2 13
5
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Conditions of the City Division of Transportation Engineering
contained her,in.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval of the City
Engineering Department contained her, in.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with
the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
transmittal dated January 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District's transmit'el dated April 11, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March
30, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The .applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated March 7, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply wi:th the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittal dated January 4, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San
Bernard,no County Museum transmittal dated December 22, 1989, a copy of
which is attached.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30)
inches.
STAFFRPT~CUP2
14
16.
17.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, nine (9) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by a filing
fee as set forth in Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as
set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348.
A minimum of 171 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 171 parking spaces
shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit No. 3. The parking area
shall be surfaced with (asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3
inches on 4 inches of Class II base.) (~:,oompogod granitc ocmpactod to o
minimum thiokno~ of thr:,o (3) inoho~ tr;atod with not loss than 1/2 gallon
par ~quoro yard of ponotrotion ooat oil, foliowad within six months by an
applioation of 1/q gallon par oquoro yard of ooal ooat oil.) AMENDED AT THE
APRIL 20, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
STAFFRPT~CUP2
15
ATTA~ NO. 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 2
Formerly Plot Plan No. 11694
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
October 9, 1990
October 9. 1991
Plannincl D!epartment
The use hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for an automotive
center with 21,117 square feet of service area and 8,824 square feet of retail
area.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Ternecula, its agents officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City 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 |egislative body concerning Conditional User
Permit No. 2. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding againat 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 Temecuia.
This approval shall be used within one | 1 ) year of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant
the baginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval
within the one I1 ) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to
completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit 3, or as amended by these conditions.
in the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one
{1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Conditions of the City Division of Transportation Engineering
contained heroin.
STAFFRPT\CUP2
10.
11.
12.
15.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of ahproval of the City
Engineering Department contained herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance witl~'~
the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department%
h
transmittai dated January 19, 1990, a copy of which is attac ed.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control Districtts transmittal dated April 11, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 51~6 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated March
30, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations sat forth in the
Riverside County Geolo9ist~s transmittal dated March 7, 1990, a copy of
which is attached-
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations sat forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittai dated January I~, 1990, a copy of
which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San
Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated December 22. 1989, a copy of
which is attached.
:All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved
landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscape'~.
areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within t~.
| 10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher
than thirty' {30) inches.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, nine 19) copies of a
parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Pians shall be submitted to
the Planning Deparunent for approval'. The location, number, genus,
species, ~nC~ container size of the plants shall be shown. -Plans shatl meet all
requirements of Ordinance No. 3~8, Section 18.12. and shall be accompanied
by a filing fee as sat forth in Section 18.12, and shall be a,.u,,,id-'nied by a
filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3L!3.
A minimum of 172 parking sFaces shall be provided in ac~.~, d=-ce with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~8. 172 parking spac-_~
shal| be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit No. 3. The parking
area shall be surfaced with [ asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of
3 inches on L~ inches of Class I I base. ) I deposed granite compacted to a
minimum thickness of three 13) inches treated with not less than 1/2 gallon
per square yard of penetration coat oil, followed within six months by an
application of 1 )~ gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. )
STAFFRP'I'~CUP2
18.
19.
20.
20.a.
7,1.
22.
23.
A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit No. 3. Each parking space reserved for the handicappe shall be
icentified by a permanently affixed refiectorizecl sign constructed of
orcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol
P Accessibilit The sign shall not be smaller than 7.0 square inches !n.area
fnd shall be c~r;tered at the interior end of the parking space at a .m. ln. emum
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished
:fade, or centered at a minimu.m height of 36 !nches from the parking sp. ace
fol low/ng:
placards or license plates issued P Y Y
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner*s
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning ."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place
Shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility
in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. ·
prior to the issuance of building permits, .the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
City Engineering Riverside County F/oDd Control
Environmental Health Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Lan_ci USe. _Division
of the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional and/or
revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans
Parking and Circulation Plans
The applicant shall submit a signing program prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial corrformance with that shown on
Exhibit No. 2.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit No. 1 I Co. lor Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Deparl~ent approval-
Prior to the final building inspection ap~-,rd by the Building end Safety
· Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landsczped.
earthen berm and deu~, ,~ive block wall shaft be constructed along the
STAFFRP'IRCUP2
3
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
32.
elsiefly 120 feet of the north property line and the entire length of the south
property line. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to the
approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the~_~
Planning Director.
If the owner of the property south of the subject property submits a
discretionary application within two years of the approval of this application
or prior to occupancy of the project in question, and said application shows
a buildln9 located on the south property line shall not be required to
Construct said wall where the building on the adjacent property abuts the
property line.
The trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose a total of I~ bins shall be
centrally located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height
and shall be screened from external view,
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
Any oak trees removed with four (~) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be
placed on a ten (10) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive Cenersi Plan.
.This project may be located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior
to issuance of any building permit by the City of Temecula, a Californ}~''''
Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building anb
Safety Department identifying the potential for subsidence or liquefaction.
determined to exist,
Where hazard of subsidence or liquefaction is
appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, .the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director demonaltering compliance
with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this permit and
its initial Study which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit. the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director of the City of Temecula
demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation
measures of this permit and its initial Study which must be satisfied prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director of the City of Temecula
demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and
mitigation measures of the permit and its initial Study.
STAFFRPT\CUP2
35.
36.
39.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on I the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) t the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (112) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the
fees required by Ordinance No. 663, 'the applicant shall pay the fee required
· under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
1: Class Ill bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate
bicycle access to the project area.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in mounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantinge, wails, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan. and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required lands_~Pe planting
and irrigation shall have ben installed and be in a condition a~le to
the Director of Building and Safety- The plants shall be healthy and free of
Weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be property
constructed and in good working order.
All utilities, except electricel lines mad 33kv or greater. shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Engine repair or body work services shall be prohibited.
Enclineerincl DeOartment
The following are the Engineering Depa, b,,e, tt Conditions of Approval for this
project and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regard ng the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Depa'~r~t~ent.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements. traytied
ways. and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration-
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
40. A detailed Drainage Study will be required to be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. The Study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing, interim, and proposed
conditions, including hydrology and hydraulic calculations.
STAFFRPT%CUP2
5
50.
51.
52.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk
drains shall be installed to City Standards,
A permit shall be required from CelTtans for any Work within their right-of-
way.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report t0 the Engineering
Department- The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and ·Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
COnditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~'x36' mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer,
The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance
of building permits.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the
Area Drainoge Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new
issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge
has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior
to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans belng_~
Substantially complete, a!~propriete clearance letters and approval by th
City Engineer.
if grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site.
The applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following
agencies:
- Eastern Municipal Water District
- City Engineer
- Environmental Health
- Fire Department
- Planning Department
- Riverside County Flood Control
STAFFRPT\CUP2
6
Rancho California Water District
Riverside Transit 'Agency
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
53.
55.
'56.
57.
59.
60,
61.
All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment
permit,
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans,
PriOr to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as asf-hlished per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact,
The design and construction of improvements for Ynez Road shall be bonded
for in the event that the Meilo Roos does not construct the required public
improvements in accordance with County Standard No. 100A | 110' / 13~4t ).
Dedication shall be made of the following right-of-way on the following
streets:
DEDICATE YNEZ ROAD TO 67' FEET FROM STREET CENTERLINE
Nob-vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for Ynez Road
except for one driveway located at the north property line.
The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the
adjacent property.
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 El R I Negative Declaration for
the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
if an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or
of payment of the fee.
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
with
copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently,
executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of
the Public Facility fee, The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square
foot, not to exceed $10,000, Developer understands that said Agreement
may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated ( assuming
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this
Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this
Condition, of this Agreement, the fo, i~ation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic
impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right
tO protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount
thereof.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City~s C.A.T.V.
STAFFRPT~CUP2
-- County of Riverside
_ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
laTE:
p ! V~--~S r DE: COUNTY PLANN I NG D~aT.
A,-~rN: John P. xstov
FIIN:
ll: PLOT PLAN Z Z69~,
~rOCi~x~Z:~~qx~rr^L .XA=T~ Sp~CXAr*XST XV
The EnvxronmentaZ Health Servxces has roy&eyed Pl~t
Plan ll694 and hag no ob.qectxong. S&nxtarv sewer and water
servtces &re avaxl&ble xn thxs aret. Prtor fxrst L.D.C
meetxno. the foZlovxna &toms vxAA be submxtted:
l. "Wxll-serve" letters from the water and sewer&no
aaencxes.
If there are to be any hazardous mater&aim. k
clearance le~r from the ~',nvxronmental Health
Servxces Hazardous Mkterxals Hanaoement Branch
(Jon Hoborosa&, 358-5055}, vt~l =e reeuzred
~nd~cat, xno that the oro.qect has been cleared for:
~, Undereround storaoe
b,- -Hazardous Waste Generator Services,
c,' Hazardous ~&ste Dxsclosure.(~n
accordance vx~h A9 2Z85),
d. Waste reductxon m&rtaoement,
SM:t&c
co: Jon Mohoroskx. Hazardous Materx&ls Branch
d
JAN 2 3 1990
RIVER61OE COUNTY
PLANNING DSPARTMENT
April 2~, 1990
Rivehide County Division
of Environmental Health
I.~nd Use Section
Post Office ~ox 1370
Rivehide, California 92~02
SLTBJF, C~: Water Availability
Reference: 'Parcel Map 23960, Lot 2
(Ynez Auto Center)
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RC'0v'D and the property owner.
· 'Water ~sv;ailabiliW'~ld be' ~0ntingent up0'n the property' 'owner signing"
an A~cn~ AFecment which assigns water manaSemcnt. rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact .SenBa DoherTy at (714) 676-
Sincerely,
RANClIO CALIFORNIA WATER DIST~
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Engineering Manager
F01ZA/dl~s76f
cc: SenFs Doherty
TO:
FROM:
RE .'
MEMORANDUM
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD C08TROL
AND WATER CONSERVATIO~ DISTRICT
File' DATE:
:A,,,,,x/ "1
We have reviewed this case and ask that the following items be
addressed on an amended map.
Topography should be shown or corrected.
Show proposed grading and drainage.
Show how ~he projec~ would be pro%ected from storm flows.
MOve structures/pads out of low area,
Proposed diversions should be corrected.
Show.existing and proposed. channels, culverts, drain pipes~___
and other such facilitSes,
Show existing watercourses.
PLANNING it EHGtNEERLHG
4~-Z09 OASIS STitEET. SUITE 405
LND|O, CA 92Z0t
16t9) 34Z-gJ~6
RIVERSIDE COUN'D'
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
GLEN ]- NE%t;MAN
RRE CHIEF
3-30-90
PLANNING & ENGINEERINB
3760 IZTH STREET
RIVEi~IDL CA 9150t
{714) 787-6606
TO:
PLA~NXNG DE~AKTHEXC
ATTN:
RE:
JOHN KISTO~
PLOT PLAN 1169A - AY~.NDED #1
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot
plan, the'Fire Department-recommends the following fire protection measures
be pro-vid d in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized
fire prot:ctton standards:
1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow ~or the remodel
or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established
in Ordinance 5A6.
2. Pro,vide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPH
fo~ a 2 hour duration at 20 PSZ residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the Job site.
3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6"x4"x2tx2i), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than
165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved
vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
~. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy o~ the water system plans ~o
the Fire Deparmen~ for review- Plans shall conform Co ~he ~ire hydrant
types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meec the ~ire ~lov
requtremencs. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer
and ~he local wa~er company with the follouing certification: "1 certify
~a~ che design of ~he we=e: system is in accordance with the requi=emencs
prescribed by ~he Riverside County Fire Department.
5. ~e required fire flow uy be adJusced a= a later poimc in the pemiC
process ~o reflect changes in desip, cou=ruc~iou type, area separation
or built-~ ~ira pro~ecciou measures.
6. Ins gall a c~pleta fire spri~er system in all bulldogs requiring a
fire ~1~ of 1500 G~ or greater. ~e post indicator valve and ~ire
daparmeu= co~ecciou shall be located =o the f:om~, wi=h~ 50 feec of
a hydr~c, and a ~m~ of 25 feec from che building(s). A statement
~hac =he building(s) ~11 be au=ougically fi:e sprin~ered must be
included on the ~t=le page of the budding plans.
Subject:' Ploc Plan 1169&
Page 2
7. 1=shall a supervised ware=flow moni:oring fire alam system.
submitred =o =he Fire Deparnmen= for approval prior to installation, as
required by =he Uniform Building Code.
8. In lieu of fire sprinkler requiremen=s, building(s) mus= be ·re· separated
in=o square foot tompar=men=s, approved by =he Fire Depar=menn, as per
Sec=ion 505 (e) of =he Uniform Building Code.
9. A s=a=ement =hat =he building will be au=omeric·lly fire sprinklered
must appear on =he ~inle page of =he building plans.
10. Ins=all panic hardware and exi= si~ns as per Chap=e= 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
11. Certain designa=ed ·reds will be required =o be maintained as fire lanes.
12. Insrail pot=able fire ex=inguishers winh · minimum faring of 2A-10BC.
Co=each a certified ex=inguisher company for proper placemen= of equipment-
13. Prior to issuance of building pc=mine, =he applicann/developer shall be :
responsible co submi= a check or money order in the amount of $&13.00
to =he Riverside County Fire Departmen= for plan check fees.
14. Prior =o the issuance of building permi=s, the developer shall deposit
wi=h =he Riverside Coun=y Fire Departmen=, · check or money order equaling
the sum of 25C per square foo= as miciga=ion for fire protecnion impacts-
This amouu~ mus= be submitned separatel~ from =he plan check review fee.
15. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All ques=iOns regarding =he meaning of condi=ions shall be referred
Planning and Engineering sEaff.
Plans must
RAYHOND H. PEGIS "-
Chief Fire Department Planner
X,aura Cab~al, Fi~e Safer~ Speciali~
ama
=liVE=BiDE councu.
i . nmn OE q.a Enc
N/rob 7. ~ggO
(Rayteed 3une ~S.
C, eo $0tls Inc.
248g0 Jefferson Avenue
P.O. Box 4gCl
lqu~rtete, CA 923(2
ATTENTZON: ;ohn P. Frlnkl (n
Albert. R.
SUB3ECT: Xlqu~.st.prto~o Special. Studies Zone/Ltque:actton Hazard
Vl .0, 278-A-RC
plo+, Plan No,
:A,P ,H,;
Ceunt.v leologtc Report Nos.
Temecul a Area
6ent ama ..................................................
we ~ave revlM-~ the se~satct~eologdc aspects of .yOur repo-*- ent~t1e~-
Z3960, Off Of Vnez Road, Te~ecuIE, ,
~at_-d FeOruarY ZT, 1990, .
Your report clet:ermlned
~. I(o e,/1~ence for f&~lttng was found ~n 'the area of -the previously
foul1; se~.=ack zone on th~s s~te, The potentail for ground
estal::~ 1 sfiee '
rupture at ~e stte t5 c~ns~dered
The M11Clamar fault has been mapped ;~ust westerly of the subject
property, Peak hortzontaq ground eccelePetton from 8 maximum credible
Z. earthqualm of 7.5 magnitude on th~s ~ault couqd exceed 0.78g, ;oak
horiZOntAl ground ic~elerat~on from a maxtmum probable earthquake on
r. hls fault could excee~ 0-769.
3. 5econ-~ary earthquake effects of lurching a~qdlor lo=al~zed ground
creelring could occur at t~ts s~te-
4" 'T~e pot. ent, lal for ~s:jnEml or seethe is not =oneSdared pertinent to site
eevelo;s~ent-
4080 LEMON ~rl. lEE't. ITH FLOOR
PaCe Z
lic;~efactton is likely to occur at or near the ground surface,
'Your report racerhanded that:
~. StructjJTal setbacks for faults are not warrante~ on t~ls alto.
The pol'.entlL~ for surface floodlng at the stte, although considered
low, Cannot ~e entlrely preclu.ed.
[ndIcatlonS of m3ormass movement Or major landsliding have not bee.
observed cr repor:ed on the ilia.
SOme cf the sand.y Soll lenses resent tn the vtctnity of ZO feet a~
BOring B-3 have i po~ntla~ fo~ 11cluefactlon. $ubslGence eue to
liquefaction vould be localized to nll and no mnlfestatlon of
T!he potentde1 for surface flooding Should be further evaluated by t~e
destgn er;tneer,
3. ~eoqogtc Inspections should be performed during site grading to vetfly
,,eolog~c conditions relathe to fault~n.c encounCer~ bot~ wlthln or
outstde of ~he Alqu~st-Prtolo Spectal Studtea Zone.
4. Zn order to r. fttgate liquefaction potential and/or setsm(ca11~ induce~
dynamic settlement, 811 extsttng f~11 and topsoil over the ant re site
wtthtn areas of settlger. t sensitive tn;rovements Shell be removed,
The average depth of removal ~s esttmted at 3 to 4 feet, however
localized deeper removals my be netaSset.v, ~
5. The exploratory trench backft,1 should be cleaned out Inspected by the
so~s engineer, processed and replaced with f(l~ which has been
mo(sture condtttoned tO it least oDttmum mo~'sture content and compacted
to a t least 90 percent of qaborat3ry standard.
.Zt is our oD(n~o~ ~hat the'report was prepared In a cmpetent manner consistent
w~:h =he present "s~te-of-th.e-art" and satisfies the requirements of the
A1;uist-Prtolo $pectal Studies Zones ~.ct, the associate RIverside County
0rdtnance No, 547, Ffnal appr=val of this report ~s hereby gtve~,
Coun:y GeOlogic Repor~ Hoe. GgZ and 692
Revtsed ~ne ZS, ZggO
Page 3
It should;be noted ~haZ the re{maendetions made (n your report nov supersede
the rec~efnendat~ons mde 4n County Geologtc Report No. 278 for th~s spec~f4c
percol, This revtS~On app14es to bo~h the f/u]t setback zone and ~ que~ad:~on
mt:Ig~gton measures,
The recCu~ce;cet~°ns mde ~. ~ou~ report shalq be adhered to ~n the design and
consCrJCClon of this project.
Very ~ruly yours,
RIY[RSZD[ COUtiTT PLANNIN6 DEPARTN(NT
.~A, Rl_har~S, Plan lng Dlrec:
S~even nnsn,
CE~ 120E!
SAK:J~i~khkm and L~soc~att$ - ida Sanchez
co: CD~IG - ~irl 9art
Building & Safety - Norm Lostbom
..... Planning TeLm 5 - John Rqstow .......
?L
ST.ATE OF C~kLIFOIINIA--I~NF, SS. T'IUbNSP~IITATION AND 14OI,~ING AC~NCY
Planning Department
Attention Mr. John Ristow
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA q250Z
Dear Mr. Ristow:
Thank you for the oDOortunity to review the proDosed Plot Plan
No. Zib~4 located between Route I-Z5 and Ynez Roa~, north of
Solana Way in the Temecula area.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the items checked and/or used by those items
riotee under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of way,
the Oeveloper must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office Qrior to beginning work.
If additional information is =esired, please call Mr. Thomas
Neville at (714) 585-4584.
Very truly yours,
H. N. LEW~NDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
Art
CYour Reference)
~lan c,~ecker
;,.'E WOULD LIKE TO NOTE:
Date
~.Co Rr.e P:-l)
Ox~r~x~:inm ~'.~q pr~t or ~op__v-,4 S:ar~ r4,: of ~y ~ ~ ~~c~ for
~! REQ~ZST ~AT ~E IF~'~ ~ECK~ BELOW BE IN~ED IN ~l CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THIS PROJECT:
Normal right of way dedica:ion :o provide
Normal s~ree: improvements to provide
X
'half-wid:h on :he state highway.
half-width on :he state hi3hwaY.
Curb a~d gut:or, State Standard ~_..._alonJ the state
ParkinJ shall be prohibited alonj :he state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no par~ini" siBns.
radius curb returns be provided at intersections with :he state highway.
~dard wheel:hair ramp must be provided ~n the returns.
A positive vehicular barrier aloni the property frontage shall be provided tO
limit physical access to the state hithway-
Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state hiihwaY.
Vehicular access ~o the state highway shall be provided by existin3 public road
connections.
standard
Vehicular access to the state hijhway shall ~: provided by
driveways.
Vehir',,~' mr, cn'~.~'i-.n shall be paved ac ~ w'ir..'--:--t c,he r. ace ~!~:-ay riF.: .~f ~y.
for . ~ph alcr~ :.~ scara hi~hmy.
Arte:Imra off-4r:et tmrk:--~, ~h.tch Ooes not require ~ cx't,,o r, he suce hill. my, s~ ~e providod
wE
P!use refer :o ar~-.~ec~ a~.~ crrnmu.
REQUEST:
REQUEST Tile OPPO;TUNITY TO REVIE;; DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS:
A copy of ct- =mff~c or mvU~,,_xral study.
A ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ T~ ~.
D~e: 3anuarY 4, ~990
Rlv-15-5.96;~.0
?P 11694
(Your Reference;
A~TIONAL
CON}4ENT$:
The Tra~smx==ai le==er, da=ed 12/22/89, -~ndxcaues an Assessor's
Parcel number whlch does no= agree wlrh =he AP numDer shown on
subml=ted slze plan.
The CalTrans Rlghu-of-WaY (R/W) shall be dellnea=ed wLzh uhe
"NO ACCESS" symbol (see S=aue R/W map~)-
;~e required cross-sec=lons (see a==ached "HANDOUT"~ shall exzend
a mlnl~u~, of 15 fz. beyond bo=h sides of =he R/W line.
~ATE: December 22, 1989
TO: Assessor
Butldtn9 and .Safety - Land Use
Butldtng and ,Safety - Gradtn9
. Surveyor - Ken .Tetch .....
"'Road Department:*'
.. flood Contro! Dtstfict
Ftsh& Game
U.S. Postel $ervlce - Ruth E. Devtdson
U.S. Ftsh& I/tldllfe Servtces
County Superintendent of SchOols
Rancbo Ca1 tfOrnta Idater Dtstrtct
Eastern Kuntctpal Mater Dtstrtct
California Eation - Deoug Davies
Southern Callfornla Gas
General Tellphone
Ca1 trans #8
Ct ~y of Temecul a
Temecula UntOn School Dtstrtct
- -RiVERSiDE COUnEu
pL nnin DEPARCGIErliZ
Cmaatsstoner Turner
San krnardfno County 14useue'
Comuntty Plans
JAN I C 1990
PLOT PLAN 11694- (TE S) - E.A. 34633 -
Colbourn-Currter-Moll Architecture, Peter
Nell - Rancho California Area - F4rlt
Supervisortel Dtstrlct - V stde of Ynez
Rd., betwee~ Vtnchester Rd. & Solana
- C-I/C-P Zone - 3 Acres - REQUEST:
Automotive rata11 and servtce- Hod 119 -
A.P. 921-0~..53,54
D'I ..
clears, It wtll then go to publtc heartng. " .... '
Your comments and recommendations are requested prtor to January 18, 1990 tn order that we
may tnclude the In the staff report, for thts particular use.
Should you have any questions regarding thts 1tee, please do not besttare to contact
John Rtstw at 787-6356.
P 1 enner
C01~ENTS:
The Darcel Is LocatecI on the fosslllferous Paut~a Formation. Construction excavation
w111 1roDact nonrenewaDZe paleontologlc resources.
The cleveloOer must retain a cluallflecl verteDrate Daleontologlst to cleveloO a slte-sDectt
procjram to mitigate linDacts to paleontolo91c resources. This program should tnciucle:
Dj~I;~: mr~nit~rtr~7 ~f ~~1~ hy m n,,sllfle~ nmlet~tol~lC monitor: (2) Dreparatlon Of
recovereel specimens, lnclucllng secliment DrocessLng for smalZ verteDrate fossils; (3)
P14rE, Rk~lMtB~; IllelNMksttliTl
r~omi=lete specimen Inventory.
1/7/90
Dr. Allan D. 6rtesemer, Museums Director
RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA ~2501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 12201
(714) 7874181 f61 el 342-8277
:iiVFDiDi COUntY
pLAnrlillG DEPArtment
Gee SOils, xnc.
.24Beg Jefferson Avenue
P.O. Box 4~0
!~.ar=iata, CA 12362
Attention: John P. FranKlin
W.O.
Plot Plan ll6g4
A.P.N.t ~49-210-004
Cotmt~ GeoLogic Report 14o.'e 691 -.
and 6 2
Tomscala JLTOs
Gen% lemen:
we ~ave raylaved the aeismic/geoloqic aspects of y~r report
entitled "tzeZiminar Soils end Geologic OFflate Report, Parcel 4
me PSrce~ Hap ~o, 21960, off of Ynez Road, Tamecure, CA,w dated
;~y 2e, 1989, and your addsedum dated February 2~, 1990.
Your report determined theft
14o evidence for faulting was found in the area cf the
pteviouly es~abltshed fsu]~ eer~ack zone on ~his site. Tee
;o~en~tal tot ground t~p~ure as ~he' site is considered low,
2. The Mildmast fault has been mapped Just westerly of ~he
subject property. Peak horizontal 9round eccelers~ion from
m maximum credible earthquake of ~.$ magnitude on this faul~
c~uld exceed 0.~e q. Peak horizontal ground acceleration from
a maxim~probable earthquake on this fault could exceed 0.~4
ge
3. Secondary earthspanks effects of lurebAng sad/or localized
ground cracklag could occur at this site.
4. The potential for tsunami o= metshe iS ao~ aeneidsPed
per~inent to site development,
S. .'~e potential for outface floodLeg at tam site, siChough
considered low, oanne~ ~4eacirely pieeluded,
ledinclines of me~og mmeo momen~ or me~or leedmXidt~J have
not been observed or reported on the otto,
teldON STREET. gTH
RNF. RSt OE. CM..R)RNtA
'd at'OH
C, eo 5oi:la, ln¢.
Ma:Ch ?,
t~age -2-
Sme oi' the sandy sell lenses present in the vicinity of 20
feet a~ Boring B-3 hive a potential ~or liquefaction.
liquefe~4: on would b~ localized to nil and
Subsidence due to i
no manifestation of ~iquefsc~ion is likely to occur at or near
the ground suztPace.
Your report recosmenckd thatl
1. Structural setbacks for faults are not warrented on this site.
The potential for surface flooding should be further evaluated
by ~he design engineer·
3eelsate inspections should be performed during si~e grading
to verify geologic conditions relative to faulting encountered
both viihis st outside of the Alquist-Prio~o Special Studies
Zone.
In order to mitigate liquefactionpotential and/or seismically
induced dynamic settlement, oil existing fill and topsoil over
=he entire site within areas of set~lomen~ sensi~iv~
improvements shall be removed· T~e everaVe dep=h of removal
ie esttmated st 3 to ~ feet, hourvet localized deeper removals
may be nosesmary.
The e~ploratory trough ba~k~lll should be cleaned out,
Anspe~ted by the moils engineer, pro~easod and replaced rich
fill vh~oh bee been moletuft ~ondit/oned to at least op~imu~
moisture OOntOn~ end o~mpeatod to st least 90 perGent of
~ebera~oz7 s~&nderd.
our opinion the& the report was prepared in a competent
· satisfies
mannerconsloteh~ with the present amUses-of-the-eft end
the'requirements ef ~e ~iot-Pziolo S~oL~ J~udies tGnes kc~,
of ~his repor~ i0 here~y given,
It ShOuld b ensUed tillS th~ recommendations made incur report nov
supercede the rs~ _ridelions ado in ~7 ~oZogie bpo~ ~o.
270; :or thin s~ci~ic parcel, Tats mimAon applies ~o ~Ch the
fault ee~et sane and Xi~etacC~oa mitigation mesm~eo,
o ;
m
~age -a -
of ~h · ·
design and cono%ruc~Lon t proJe~
(:g0-%200 '
8AKsbam
--c,o.,14etJr~am an& kasoc.-- l~ OunCes .......
ATTACH1VIF~NT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ~
~Zlication for a Variance to exceed the maxima,.. sign
~l.lowed hV Ora~nance No. 348. DrODOS fOOt
high sway siQn. located at 29115 Front 'eet.
:Mark
Chairman Hoa~
summarized the staff
,ed the publ:
g at 6:40 P.M.
Murrieta, stated that
the height was due to the
property to the east was
therefore, making a 45'
of the interstate.
Lou Mashmere, 19555 Lno De
the request for a vari
ifact that the elevation
10 feet higher than his
high sign not visibl. one
!The Commission a whole stated they felt there was
no exceptionai [rcumstances with nature of this
property approve the variance. Commissioners
Chiniaeff Blair stated that they ~ ~e applicant
should the placement of Cal Trans lo, '.gas along
the ate.
was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, by
oner Fahey, to close the public hearing at 50
P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(nextl denying
No. 10 based on the analysis and findings contained
the staff report. The motion was carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2, EXTENSION OF TIME
6.1 Proposal to construct an Automotive Service Center.
located on the west side of Ynez Road. East side of the
T-15.
Mark Rhoades summarized the staff report. ~e advised
that the applicant had requested that Condition No. 24 be
deleted and it was staff's recommendation that Condition
No. 24 be modified to read "Prior to the issuance of
building permits the applicant shall submit a landscape
screening plan for approval by the Planning Director.
Said landscape plan shall contain a combination of
shrubs, trees and fences.~
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M-
p(::M~H4/O6/g2 -3- 4/09/92
Larry Gabells, 10706 Birchfall Avenue, San Diego,
applicant, stated that he felt the block wall would be an
eyesore and could invite graffiti vandalism.
Gary Anderson, owner of Temecula Jeep/Eagle, indicated
that he had no problemswith the screening whether it was
a wall or landscaping. Mr. Anderson did ask that
something be done about the present condition of the
property.
Gary Thornhtll advised that he had received a phone call
from the Toyota dealership owner, who had reservations
about the deletion of the block wall.
The Commission as a whole, expressed concern for the
adequate screening of the service bay area and indicated
that they were not in favor of deleting the requirement
for the block wall.
Chairman Hoagland asked that staff amend the language for
Condition of Approval No. 17 which references using
decomposed granite for parking.
It was moved by CommisSioner Fahey, seconded by
Commissioner Blair, to close the public hearing at 7:15
P.M. and Reaffirm the previously adopted Negative
Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No.
I and Adopt Resolution No. 92-fnext) approving the
Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2,
Revised No. 1, based on the analysis and findings
contained in the staff report and subject to the
Conditions of Approval including Condition No. 24 and
with modification to Condition No. 17 as outlined by
staff. The motion was carried unanimously.
7. T : TIrE PARCEL MAP 27336
7.1 Pro al for approval of a reversion to acrea ~ as
~ v Condition of Approval No. 39 of Plot~a~ No.
939. ]oca on the northerly side of wi ster Road
~etween Ca] pleado and Diaz Road.
~ Saied Naaseh summ ized the s report.
Chairman Hoagland open he public hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Wayne Ewing, 61 enue, Riverside, concurred
with the st ed that Condition No. 14
be mod' essary by the Public
Wor ainage facilities
I be contained
PCMIN4 09/92
ATTACHlVrF~NT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMI~qSION STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
aTYOFTBiVmCULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 20, 1992
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
~ By: Matthew Fagan
REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. I
ADOPT Resolution 92- approving the Extension of Time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 based on the
Analysis and Findings coW~ined in the staff report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
J. Larry Gabele/Cheryl C. Gable
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
Colboum-Curn'er-Noll-Architecture, Inc.
One year Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2,
Revised No. 1, a proposal to construct a multi-tenant automotive
center with 8,663 square feet of retail area and 21,458 square feet
of service axea.
LOCATION:
Abutting the west side of Ynez Road and the east side of Interstate
15, approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of Ynez Road
and Solaria Way.
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
Interstate 15
PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
s~-rA~vR~n~n~ .c~w 1
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
lkst:
West:
Toyota Auto Dalcnhip
Jeep-Eaglc Auto Dealership
l~tail Commercinl
Interstate 15
PROJECT STATETICS
No. of Acres:
Building Area:
Proposed Use:
Parking Provided:
No. of Service Bays:
3
21,458 square foot auto sexyices
8.663 square foot retail
30,121 square foot total
Automotive retail and service center
171 spaces
29
BACKGROUND
Conditional Use Permit No. 2 was approved by the Planning Commission on Scptcmbcr 17,
1990. Conditional Use Permit No. 2 was an approval for 21,117 square feet of service area and
8,224 square feet of ~ area. On October 9, 1990, the City Council approved a motion to
Reccive and File Conditional Use Permit No. 2 The .approval pcriod for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2 was valid until O~ber 9, 1991. On June 17, 1991 the Planning Commission
approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 which was a request to revise the
previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2 for 21,458 square feet of service area and
8,663 square feet of retail area. Thc revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 2 did not extend
the life of the Original approval. The applicant submitted an application for an Extcnsion of
Time on September 26, 1991, which was within the prescribed 30 day application period.
PROJECTDESCRIPTION
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time is a requcst for a one year
extension to the original approved period for Conditional Use Permit No. 2. Conditional Use
Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1 modified the original approval for an automotive center with 21,
458 square fcct of service arclx and 8,663 square feet of ~ area.
ANALYSIS
No new significant issues have developed between the time of the original approval and the
present. The applicant has requested that Condition of Approval No. 24 for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2 pertaining to the six (6) foot high decorativc block wall be dclcted. Thc applicant
discussed the feasibility of removing the Condition for the walls along the southern, eastern and
northern portions of the site. It is Staff's opinion that with adequate landscaping, the same
screening cffcct could be achicved and therefore no block wall would be necessary. Staff
proposes the following Condition of approval which could rcplacc Condition of Approval No.
24 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2:
S~'TAFFRPT~-RI .CUP 2
'"Prior to; issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape
screening p]an for approval by the planning Director. Said landscape plan shall
contain a~ combination of shrubs, trees and fences.*
F. JagTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The existing zoning of the site is C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial). The Southwest Area
Community p!nn (SWAP) desi~on for the site is Commercial (C). Conditiol~ Use Permit
No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time, as conditioned, is consistent with existing zoning and
the SWAP designation for the site. As such, it is likely that Conditional Use Peat No. 2,
Revised No. 1, Extension of Time will be consistent with the City's General Plan
rccommcndations for the property, upon the Plan's final adoption.
ENVIRO~AL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was completed ~or this site on August 10, 1990 and a Negative Declantion was
adopted by the Planning Commission on September 17, 1990. At that time, environmental
issues were mitigated for the project through Conditions of Approval. The proposed Extension
of Time does not indicate any significant changes to the previously approved Conditional Use
Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission
affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY
A request for an Extension of Time was submitted to the Planning Department for Conditional
Use Permit No.i 2, Revised No. I prior to expiration date of its approval period. Staff' s analysis
of the request for an Extension of Time indicated that no new significant issues regarding
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. I had developed between the original approval
period and the present. Staff supports the applicant's request to replace a six (6) foot high
decorative bloCk wall with adequate landscaping along the southern, eastern and northern
portions of the site and has included the wording for a replacement condition of approval within
the analysis section of this staff report.
FINDINGS
No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions
of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not considered in a previous Negative Declaration on the project.
No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the
project was undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the
project will be located, which will require important revisions in the previous Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered
in the previous Negative Declaration.
3. No new information of substantial importance to the project has become available.
S~'r~9-RI .Ct~ 3
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This staff report
contains mapping and conditions of approval which support the staff recommendation.
The Commission, therefore, reaff'nTns the findings made at the time of the original
approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
REAFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1
ADOPT Resolution 92-. approving the Extension of Time for
Conditional Us~ Permii No. 2, 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- - blue page 5
Conditions of Approval For Extension of Time - blue page 10
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2,
Revised No. 1 - blue page 15
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2 - blue
page 16
Initial Study/Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, page -
blue- 17
Exhibits- blue page 18
Vicinity Map
SWAP Map
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape Plan
Letter requesting Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit
No, 2, Revised No, 1 dated April 14, 1992 - blue page 19
A3~FACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
.CUP 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PIANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TElVlEC~rLA APPROVING EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2, REVISEn
NO. 1, ON A PARCEl- CONTAINING 3.0 ACRES LOCATED
ON ~ WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD AND ~ EAST
SIDE OF INTERSTATE 1~, APPROXIMATRLY 200 FEET
NORTH OF ~ INTERSECTION OF YN~-z ROAD AND
'SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl.
NO. 921-080-0S4.
Wv[ER!~AkS, Colbourn-Currier-Noll-Architecture, Inc. fried an Extension of Time for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, in accordance with the Riverside County l-~nd
Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by x~ference;
WHRRR,skS, said Conditional Use Permit application was approved by the Planning
Commission on September 17, 1990 at which time interested parties had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition.
WI:!RRR~, the Planning Commission approved Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2 on June 17, 1991 at which time interested parties had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition.
WHERR~kS, said Extension of Time application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WItEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said
Extension of Time on April 20, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said Extension of Time; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Extension of Time;
NOW, TIIRRRI~)RE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Findings.
following findings:
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
S~FAFFRPr~-RI .C~ 6
1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the p~cm_ration of the
general plan.
.2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
a. There is a reasonable probability. that the land use or action
proposed will be consistent with the general plnn proposal being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment' to or
inte~erence with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c. The proposed use or actiOn complied with all other applicable
requirements of nnte hw and local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecuh as
the General Plan for the southwest pertion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has ad~ SWAP as its General Plan
~uidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. The proposed Bxtension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2 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
2. The Planning Commission finds, in aftproving of projects and taking other
actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following:
a. There is reasonable probability that the Bxtension of Time proposed
for Conditional Use Permit No. 2 will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time, because the project is
consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and SWAP.
b. Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopied general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, because the project is similar in use and intensity to adjacent
development.
c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state hw and local ordinances. The pr0jea is consistent with Ordinance No.
348 which conforms with State Laws.
s~r,~ann~,r~al .ctn, 7
D. Pursuant to Section 18.27(0, no Extension of T'nne for Conditional Use Permit
may be approv~ unloss the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed Extension of Time must conform to nil the General Plan
requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
public health,
is compatible
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the pwtection of the
safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
E. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Extension of Time, makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require
important revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous Negative Declaration on the
pwject.
2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the project was undertaken, such as a subsUmfinl deterioration in the air quality
where the pwject will be located, which will require important revisions in the previous
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not
covered in the previous Negative Declaration.
available.
No new information of substantial importance to the project has become
4. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This staff
report contains mapping and conditions of appwval which support the staff recommendation.
5. The Commission, therefore, mafia'ms the findings made at the time of the
original approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1.
F. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the Extension of Time for Conditional
Use Permit No. 2 proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is
compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding pwperty.
Section H. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecuh Planning
Commission hereby determines that the previous environmental determination (Adoption of
Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1,) still applies to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. l, Extension of Time.
Seaion HI. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves the Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, l~vised No. 1, extending
the approval period for Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, on a parcel containing
3.0 acres located on the west side of Ynez Road and the east side of Interstate 15, approximately
200 feet north of the intersection of Ynez Road and Solaria Way and known as Assessor's Parcel
No. 921-080-054 and subject to the following conditions:
1. Attachment No. 2, hereto.
PASSEB, APPROVI~ AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAH~VIAN
I HERIBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temeculn at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of April
1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COlVIMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
S~'TAFPRPT~il .CUP 9
ATTACH1VrF~NT NO. ~
DEVELOI,IVrlr~NT FEE C!:~.CKLIST
~ s~^mu, r~^~,~,~.cc 10
CASE NO.:
ATTACItM~NT NO. S
CITY 0F TEMECUIA
DEV~ OPlV!~NT Fk'~. CHF_L'KLIST
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
The following fe~s were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
F~
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
Cr~c Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 18
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. 22
Condition No. 55
(C.U.P. No.2)
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. 11
(c. u.P. No. 2)
Condition No. 10
(C.U.P. No. 2)
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
N/A
s~rAmu, ra~o, Lcc 11
ATTACHIV~'-NT NO. 6
INITIAL STUDY
sx.sT~P~.~.cc 12
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNINC DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
BackQround
1. lees of Prqmnent:
Larry Gabele
Address and Phone
Mmmber of ~nent:
Dots of Znvj,r~nsental
Assessment:
4725 Executive Square, Ste. 1040
La Jolla, California 92307
(619) 587-1985
August 10, 1990
4. Agency RecUrring
Assessment:
Hem of Proposal,
if al~Z~cable:
Locution of Proposal:
Conditional Use Permit No. Z
(Formerly Plot Plan 11694)
The West side of Ynez Road, approx.
200 feet North of Solana Way.
Environmental laDaCts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" .answers are provided on
attached sheets. )
Ye._Js Maybe No
1. Earth.
Will the proposal result in:
ae
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
DIsruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Ce
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
de
ee
The destruction, covering or modl-
~cation of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
witor mooion of soils, either on or
or ~ff site?
X
Yes Maybe_
fe
Air.
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or '
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards suchi as earth
quakes, landslides, mudSlid·s,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air missions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
be
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Ce
Alteration of air movement.
moisture. or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of' water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water becly?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any miterat·on of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
er turbidity?
fit
Alteration ef the direction m' rate
of flow of ground waters?
X
X
No
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
lat_ANKIESlFOIIMS -2-
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an equifar by. cut·
or excavation·?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of p~ople or property to
water related hazards euch as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number Of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants ) ?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in · barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(bird·, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish end shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animal·?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes
Maybe
No
X
x
X
X
1Q.
11.
13e
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Clare. Will the prOposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an ares?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
ee
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances :l including,
but not limited to, oil, pasticicles,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rata of the human population of
an arts?
Housing. Will the proposal effect
existing housing or crests m demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in: "
Can·ration of substantial additional
vehicular movsment~
Yes
X
X
X
x
BLANKlEa/FORMS -41-
Ce
de
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
16.
Use of substantial smounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial Increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
m need for now systems, or substantial
sitsrations to the following utilities:
Yes
X
X
X
Maybe
X
X
N.~o
X
X
X
X
a. Power or natural gas?
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
ee
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
Huron Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (:excluding
mental health ) ?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
· esthetically offensive site o!Nn to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or' quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
mrcha~olocJical site?
Will the preposal result in m:lverse
physical or aesthetic offlcts t~ a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Ce
Does the proposal have the potential
would Iffect unique cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
Ix~ential impact area?
· Yes Maybe
,
...X
X
X
X
RI AMK11:C~IItt~IIU~ -&-
21. M,ndstory Findings of S~gnificance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause I fish or wildlife
population to drop below soil
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehiatory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in m relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Dees the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A projmct's
impact on two or mere separate
resources may be relatively small.
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes
Maybe No
X
X
III.
Environmental Evaluation
1 .a,b,
1 ,c,d,
1,f,
1.g.
Yes. Fill and topsoil replacement to a depth of 3 to ~. feet will occur.
Topsoil replacement is necessary to mitigate the potential for
liquefaction and subsidence, This is not considered a significant
impact,
No, The project will not result in substantial changes in topography or
destruction of unique geologic features, The site is flat, and
substantial changes in topography will not be required,
Maybe, The potential for wind and water erosion will increase during
construction, Wind erosion will be mitigated by the use of watering
trucks and planting vegetation after grading, Increased water runoff
due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will be accommodated by
drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering Department,
No, The site is not located near. any body of water which would be
impacted by sitration or deposition,
No, County Geologic Reports No, 691 and No, 692 were prepared for:
the underlying parcel map which includes the subject property. The
County Engineering Geologist reviewed the Geologic Reports with
regard to the project in questions, Although the site is located in an
Alquist-Priolo zone, no evidence for faulting was found on the site,
The geologic report stated that structural setbacks for faults are not
warranted on this site, Secondary earthquake affects of lurching or
localized ground cracking can be adequately mitigated by proper
structural design, The report also states that the potential for
liquefaction andJot seismically induced ground subsidence can be
mitigated by replacement of topsoil and fill to a depth of 3 to L~ feet,
Localized deeper removals may be necessary, The County Engineering
Geologist found that the report satisfies the requirements of the
.Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act, The recommendations of the report
shall be Conditions of Approval for this project,
No, The project will not result in an increase in vehicle trips or an
increase in auto emissions, The nature of the project is not such that
it will attract substantial volumes of new traffic to the region,
2,b,c.
No, The project will not involve any process which would create
objectionable odors or cause any alterations in the climate,
3.a,c,
d,f.
No, The site is not located near any streams or bodies of water,
Drainage will be directed to streets or to drainage facilities, The
project does not include any structure or excavation which would alter
the flow of direction of ground water,
STAFFRPT\CUP2 8
3.b.
Yes. Increased runoff due to the addition of impermeable surfaces will
be accommodated by drainage facilities as approved by the Engineering
Department.
Yes. During construction. the proposed project will increase turbidity
in local surface water. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant.
3.g.
No. The project will be served by the Rancho Water District and will
not involve any direct withdrawals or additions to ground water. Due
to the limited depth of excavation for soil replacement and compaction,
it is unlikely that ground water will be encountered.
3.i.
No. The site is not located in a flood zone.
~.a-d.
5.a-c.
No. No unique, rare, or endangered plant species have been identified
in the area in which the site is located. The possible introduction of
new species of plants to the site as part of the required landscaping is
not considered a significant impact. The site is not used for any
agricultural crops.
Yes. The subject site is located within the area designated by
Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stephents Kangaroo
Rat. The impact of development within the Kangaroo Rat's habitat will
be mitigated by paying fees which will contribute to the implementation
of Riverside Countyts Habitat Conservation Plan.
Yes, On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction
and in the long tam due to increased traffic volumes. This is not
considered a significant impact because the surrounding land uses are
not noise sensitive and noise levels are unlikely to exceed State daily
average noise level standards,
6.b.
No. The proposed project and existing and future surrounding land
uses are commercial in nature and will not create severe noise levels.
Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palomar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area. In order to prevent
"skyglow" interference with the Mr. Palmar telescope, low pressure
sodium vapor lighting shall be used.
No. The proposed project is consistent with the designation of the site
and its vicinity for commercial land uses.
9.a,b.
10.a.
No, The project will not result in a substantial increase in the rate of
consumption of any natural or non-renewable natural resource,
Yes. The proposed automotive center will involve the use of motor oil
and may involve the use of other hazardous substan-_--_. The applicant
shall provide a list of hazardous substances which will or may be used
on the site and a submit a plan for their disposal to the' County Health
Department.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 9
10.b.
11,12.
13.a.
13.b.
13.c,d,e.
Maybe. If closure of a lane on .Ynez Road during construction is
necessary. emergency vehicle response may be inhibited. Any street
or lane closures during construction shall be coordinated with the Police
and Fire Departments.
Maybe. The project will provide additional jobs and could attract more
population to the area. However, the number of new jobs created will'
probably not exceed 100, and at least some of the jobs will be taken by
current residents of the area. The increase in population and demand
for housing in the area due to this project are unlikely to be a
significant impact.
No. The on-site parking provided is adequate to meet the needs of the
proposed land uses.
Yes. The proposed automotive center is required by Ordinance 3~8 to
provide 230 parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows 171 parking
spaces and no loading zones. The potential for on-site peak hour
circulation and parking impaction is high and could cause retail
customers to attempt to park on adjacent properties.
No. The project will not impact public transportation systems, air'
water, or rail traffic, or alter present patterns of circulation.
1L~.a,b,
e,f.
15 .a,b.
16 .a-f.
17 .a,b.
18.
Yes. The proposed project will require public services in the areas of
police, fire, road maintenance, and public facilities. Fire impact
mitigation fees and property taxes will provide adequate mitig. ation for
the additional need for public services generated by the project.
Maybe. Any impact on schools or recreational faci|ities resulting from
an increase in population due to new employment opportunities will be
mitigated by Conditions of Approval upon new housing.
No. The proposed project will not result in a substantial use or
increase in demand for fuel or other energy sources.
No. The proposed project will not result in a need for substantial
alterations of existing utility systems.
Maybe. The project will involve the use of motor oil and may involve
the use of other hazardous substances. A list of hazardous materials
which will or my be used at the site and a disposal plan shall be
submitted to the City and to the County Department of Environmental
Health Services.
Maybe. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic view
currently available to the public. However, the site is located adjacent
to the 1-15 scenic highway corridor. Building materials, colors, and
free-standing :signage shall be compatible with the natural environment
and existing development. Free-standing signs shall be the minimum
size necessary for identification. The landscaping adjacent to the 1-15
STAFFRPT\CUP2 10
19.
20.a-d.
21 .a.
21 .b.
21 .c.
21 .d.
right-of-way shall be substantial and shall provide significant
screening of the site from view from the freeway.
No. The site is not currently used for recreational purposes and is not
located in or near a potential recreational trail alignment.
Maybe. The site' is located in an area of paleontological sensitivity and
near an area of sensitivity for archaeological resources. The developer
shall retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-
specific program to mitigate potential impacts to paleontologic
resources. The program shall include monitoring of excavation.
preparation and curat. ion of specimens, and a report of findings with a
complete specimen inventory.
Maybe. The project will not degrade the environment. Any potential
reduction in Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat would be compensated by
participation in the Kangaroo Rat habitat conservation program.
No. Long term project generated traffic impacts will be mitigated by
planned street improvements.
Maybe. The project .could contribute to the existing poor level of.
service at the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way if it is occupiec~
prior to construction of street improvements at the intersection. The
project would increase southbound through traffic by 10% and
southbound traffic turning left on Solana Way by 13%. These are
relatively small impacts, but will aggravate the poor level of service due
to existing traffic and projected traffic due to other projects and
growth in the area. The poor level of service will be mitigated by
construction of street improvements which will probably occur in
approximately 12 months.
Maybe. The project will involve the disposal of used motor oil. Used
oil will be recycled and will not be disposed in a manner which will
pollute soil or ground water. The use of any other hazardous materials
will require a clearance from the County Department of Health.
STAFFRPT\CUP2 11
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the propose project c=uid have s signi-
ticant effect on the environment, there will not be · signi-
fir, ant effect in this use because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of approval
have been addeel to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment. and an ENVIRONMENq'AL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
RLANKIE~IFORM_~ ~~
ATTACItMF~NT NO. 7
CORRESPONDENCEfPETrHONS
S~,,,FFRA'~Z6~Pn~CC 13
GABELE & OMAN, CPA'S
May 20, 1992
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Tamsouls, CA 92590
RE= C.U.P. No.2
MAY 2 0 199
CITY OF TEMECULA
Dear Matthew=
on October 9, 1990 the City Council approved a motion to
receive end Tile Conditional Use Permit No. 2 subject to conditions
outlined in a letter dated October 15r 1990. On April 20, 1992 the
Planning Commission agreed to extend my approval [or C.U.P. No.
subject to the same llst of conditions. At that April 20, 1992
meeting I requested a waiver of Condition No. 24 which requires a
six foot high decorative block wall on the easterly 120 feet of the
north property line and the entire length of the south property
line. I explained to the commissioners that I understood that the
intent of the wall was to screen the bay doors of this proposed
auto service center [rom public view. I also explained that
believed I could accomplish this same screening with ~ much more
aesthetically pleasing landscape screen. I pointed out to the
commissioners that the building we have proposed is an
aesthetically pleasing building and that the bay doors will not
present an eye sore to the general public first of all. Secondly,
it is not only my opinion but the opinion of both my landscape
architect and my building architect that this six foot high block
wall will indeed create an eyesore for our project. The commission
simply stated that they did not want to make any concessions
regarding this issue and approved our extension request subject to
all the original conditions of approval.
I would like to appeal this decision to the City. Council and
point out to them that the screening effect can be made through
landscaping rather than through an unsightly block wall surrounding
our project making it look more like a prison site rather than an
architecturally well-designed commercial building. For your
information I have spent in excess of $70,000 for site development
and architectural plans in order to make this project not only one
that I can be proud of but also one that fits well with the
surrounding buildings along the Ynez corridor. Should you have any
further questions regarding this appeal please feel free to contact
me at (619) 587-1985.
Very tr y your ,
4275 EXECUFrVE S(;3..IAr",E SUITE 1040. LA JCU.A, C. AL.Fr{:)f'4 IA 92037 (61Q) ,587-IQ85
~oa COO
9t:gt
O~-SO-gGG
t
ATTA~ NO. 8
EXI:HRITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
-- RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ' RO~D
SITE
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
EXI-IIRIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: April :20, 199~
CITY OF TE~CULA
SWAP .- Exhibit B
RAN,
SITE
.IFO
Designtalon:
E
Commercial
ZONING - Exhibit C Designation: Scenic Highway Commercial
Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, ExtenSion of Time
P.C. Date: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
J /
CASE NO.: Condition Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
EXIHRIT: D SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
ELEVATIONS BUILDING B i' ---
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Exteasion of Time
Ex~mrr: E ELEVATIONS
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
'EEE~K*t[~I~'Bi.J~,D'rgG' B
!
l'** ,, "/.,". :,'~ F~
ELEVATIONS BUILDING C/D
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
EXITrRIT: E ELEVATIONS
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
ELEVATIONS BUILDING
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
Exmnff: E ELEVATIONS
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
EXI-!IRIT: F FLOOR PLAN
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
'FLOOR PLAN ....... """""'" ""'
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised N0. 1, Extension of Time
EX~IT: F FLOOR PLAN
P.c. DATE: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 2, Revised No. 1, Extension of Time
EXmniT: F FLOOR PLAN
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Perm|t No. 2, Revised N0. 1, Extension of Time
EXItTRIT: G LANDSCAPE PLAN
P.C. DATE: April 20, 1991
ITEM NO. 16
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMB2ULA
AGENDA RF--PORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning DeparUnent
June 23, 1992
Appeal No. 20 for Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No.
1 and Variance No. 11
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ denying Appeal No. 20 upholding
Planning Commission's decision to deny Plot Plan No. 10605,
Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1 and Variance No. 11 for
allowing a gravel parking lot for an existing office building.
BACKGROUND
On March 27, 1989 the Riverside County Planning Department approved Plot Plan No. 10605,
Amendment No. 1 for an expansion of an existing office building. Condition No. 16 for this
approval required a paved parking lot. Since then, the applicant built the addition and has been
occupying the building without a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant was informed of the
necessity to pave the parking lot on two occasions by the Building and Safety Department;
however, he has since decided to request a permanent gravel parking lot. This request was
denied by Planning Commission on May 18, 1992.
The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's Findings and determined that the applicant has
not demonstrated a hardship other than economics and could not make the necessary findings for
approving a Variance. They further did not want to set a precedent in approving future projects
with permanent gravel parking lots and denied Revised Permit No. 1. The Planning
Commission directed Staff to work with the applicant on the timing of the parking lot paving.
Six (6) months was suggested as a reasonable time for completing the paving.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
SXSTAFFRPT~0APPEALCC I
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution - page 3
Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1992 - page 6
Planning Commission Staff Report of May 18, 1992 - page 7
Fee Checklist - page 8
Correspondence - page 10
Exhibits - page 11
vgw
ATTACHM'F, NT NO. 1
RESOLUTION
A'ITACHlVfR'NT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92--
A RF~OLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 20, UPHOLDING
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLOT
PLAN NO. 10605, A1V~-~~ NO. 1, REVISED PERMIT
NO. I AND VARIANCE NO. 11 TO ALLOW A GRAVEL
PARKING LOT LOCATED ON TFIE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN
STREET, 100 FEET WEST OF 1VI~.RCEDES.
WIlYRE/kS, To-Mac Engineering fried Appeal No. 20 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
June 23, 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, TFI'EREFORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TIFF. CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
f'mdings:
A. Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 65360, a newly incoq~orated 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, ff all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
S~TAFI~T~OAPP~,J,.CC 4
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General plan for the southwest 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.
to wit:
The City Council in denying the Appeal, makes the following additional findings,
1. This request is inconsistent with Ordinance No. 348 in that the Ordinance
requires paved parking lots.
2. This request is inconsistent with City policies in that no other gravel
parking lot has been approved by the City.
3. Findings for a Variance can not be made in that the applicant has not
demonstrated a hardship other than economics.
Section H. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula City Council
hereby determines that Appeal No. 20 is a statutory exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section
15270(a) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section HI. PASSRD, DENIRD AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSAT J-
MAYOR
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 23rd day of June,
1992 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCH-M]~VIBERS
COUNCIl,MEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. G1H:-gK
CITY CLRRK
ATTACItIV~.NT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMI,~SION MINUTES
OF
MAY 18, 1992
S~TAPPRFr~0APPRALCC (~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 18. 1992
Jack Wong, co-owner, stated that at the advice of CaI-Trans representatives,
they submitted the request for a ten foot high wall to accomplish noise
reduction.
Commissioner Ford stated that he felt it would be more appropriate to design
a six foot high wall and if the noise study required a higher wall, condition the
project to build to the recommended height.
Commissioner Blair asked the applicant if he would be willing to perform a
sound study. Mr. Wong indicated that it would be very costly for him to have
the study performed.
Chairman Hoagland stated that the applicant has consulted with CaI-Trans and
received their recommendation and has presented an acceptable landscape plan
and therefore he would approve the applicant's request.
Commissioner Fahey expressed her concurrence with Chairman Hoagland.
Commissioner Ford and Commissioner Blair indicated that they would not be
willing to approve the request without a sound study.
Chairman Hoagland suggested that the Planning Director contact Commissioner
Chiniaeff on an informal basis and make a decision based on the majority
opinion.
Commissioner Ford reiterated that he felt the approval of the height would be
a precedent setting decision.
PUBLIC HEARING
VARIANCE NO. 11, PLOT PLAN 10605 REV. NO. 1
6.1 Proposal is a request to allow a gravel parking lot.
Street, Temecula.
Located at 41934 Main
Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Tony Terich, To-Mac Engineering, applicant, presented the Commission with a
copy of a letter of acceptance for a gravel parking lot for a period of one year,
from the Old Town Temecula Historical Review Board. Mr. Terich asked that
if the Commission choose not to al3prove on a precedent setting basis, that
~ PCMINUTE5611 8192 -4- ~127192
pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 18.1992
they allow the applicant to use the gravel parking lot until a Specific Plan for
Old Town has been adopted and if the Old Town Specific Plan does not allow
gravel parking lots, then a one year period be granted for compliance.
Commissioner Ford questioned Mr. Terich's argument for a gravel parking lot.
Mr. Terich referred to ground water absorption.
Chairman Hoagland questioned how oil and grease drippings from the cars
would be kept from entering the water run-off.
Mr. Terich stated that the parking lot would consist of three to four inches of
gravel which could absorb the pollutants and then be removed and replaced.
Chairman Hoagland stated that he would be opposed to the applicant's request
for a permanent gravel parking lot.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to
close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and Adoot Resolution No. 92-(next) and
Resolution No. 92-(nextJ denying Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1,
Revised Permit No. I and Variance No. 11 based on the analysis and findings
contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Ford asked if there was a time that could be allowed so that the
project is in total compliance with the permit.
Doug Stewart advised that the Public Works department is the only department
left to sign off and is at the Commissions discretion.
John Cavanaugh suggested that the Commission give the applicant a
reasonable period of time to pursue completion of the conditions from date of
the recommendation.
Commissioner Fahey amended her motion to direct staff to work with the
applicant on a timely completion of the condition, Commissioner Blair
concurring.
The motion was carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
( PCMI~UTE$SII e/82 -6- 6121192 ~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 18.1992
Commissioner Blair added that she would not favor a one year period for
completion; however, would find six months more acceptable.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18
7.1
Proposal is a request to permit the sale of beer and wine at a Mobil Oil gas
station, Rancho California Town Center, 29500 Rancho California Road,
Temecula.
Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M.
Ken Huper, 18634 Lankenshire Way, Los Angeles, representing Mobil Oil,
advised the Commission that the gas station operates 24 hours per day;
however, beer and wine sales would be limited to restricted hours by the ABC.
Sidney Vernon, 30268 Mercy Court, Temecula, expressed his concerns with
drinking and driving. Mr. Vernon added that he felt selling beer and wine at a
gas station would encourage drinking and driving. Mr. Vernon also noted the
location of the church across the street from the gas station.
Ken Huper stated that Mobil Oil did not approve of drinking and driving,
however the application is in conformance with the ordinance and there are
other establishments within the city which currently sell beer and wine in
addition to gasoline.
The Commission as a whole expressed disapproval of the sale of alcohol at a
gas station.
John Cavanaugh reminded the Commission that the proposal is a C.U.P. and
therefore the Commission would have to set forth specific findings, such as
those that relate to health, safety and welfare.
Commissioner Blair questioned the church location on Rancho California Road
in regards to the request,
Saied Naaseh advised that the ABC would not deny the request based on the
location of the church; however, they would place stricter restrictions on the
establishment.
Gary Thornhill advised the Commission that had the request been located in a
residential zone or near a freeway, staff would have recommended denial;
however, because this is a built-out shopping center, staff did not feel that this
"" PCMINUTESEI1 8192 -6- 61271i2
ATrACItMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF I~EPORT
OF
MAY 18, 1992
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF lttMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 18, 1992
Case No.:
Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit
No. 1 and Variance No. 11
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh
RECO~ATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- _ and Resolution No. 92-_ denying
Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1
and Variance No. 11 based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
To-Mac Engineering
To-Mac Engineering
PROPOSAL:
A request to modify Condition No. 16 of appmved Plot Plan No.
10605, Amendment No. 1 and a Variance to Section 18.12.b.l.b.
of Ordinance No. 348.
LOCATION:
South side of Main Street, 70 feet west of Mercedes Street
EXISTING ZONING:
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING: N/A
EXISTING LAND USE: Engineering Office
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
S~TAFFIFr~I06C~Pp.I~C I
PROJECT STATISTICS
Building Foot Print
Parking & Driveways
Landscaping
Boardwalks
Total
2,225 square feet (total square feet 5,486)
11,000 square feet
1,350 square feet
270 square feet
14,845 square feet
Number of Parking Spaces 25
BACKGROUND
On March 27, 1989 the Rivehide County Planning Director approved Plot Plan No. 10605,
Amendment No, 1 for an expansion of an existing office building. Condition No. 16 for this
approval requir~ a paved parking lot (refer to Attachment No. 4 and Exhibit D).
PROJECT DF_~CRIFrlON
The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to allow a gravel parking lot for an office
building by applying for a Revised Permit and a Variance. The approval of the Rgvi~ Permit,
will modify Condition No. 16 of the approved Plot Plan which required a paved parking lot.
The approval of the Variance will allow a gravel paine lot by deviating from Section
18. 12.b.1.b. of Ordinance No. 348 (refer to Attachment No. 5) which requires that all parking
lots to be paved~
ANALYSIS
Section 18.27 of Ordinance No. 348 (refer to Attachment No. 6) states that Variances can be
granted when special circumstances apply to a parcel of land including size, shape, topography,
location or surrounding that would deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification. It is Staff's opinion that
there are no special circumstances in this case to support a Variance from Section 1.8.12.b. 1 .b.
of Ordinance No. 348 which requires all parking areas to be paved. Furthermore, Staff does
not support the Revised Permit to modify this condition since this would be the first project
where the City would waive a requirement for parking lot paving. Staff feels this could set a
precedent in considering future projects and would likely be inconsistent with the Specific Plan
being developed fcr Old Town.
Attachment No. 7 includes a letter of explanation fwm the applicant and the signatures of people
in support of the request which was provided to Staff by the applicant.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
This project is not consistent with the C-1/C-P zoning designation since Section 9.4.d. of this
zoning designation (refer to Attachment No. 8) requires alllprojects to be consistent with Section
18.12 of Ordinance 348 which is the parking regulations. This section requires paving of
parking lots.
S~rAFFRPT~I06OSPP.PC 2
This project will aim likely be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan and zoning
regulations, siace it is not expected to allow gravel parking lots. This project is also inconsistent
with SWAP since it refers to Ordinance No. 348 for development guidelines.
ENYIRONMY-NTAL DETERMINATION
An environmental determination is not applicable for projects that are recommended for denial.
ff the Planning Commission elects to approve this project, it would be a Class I Categorical
Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff is not able to support this project since there are no special circumstances that apply to this
property which do not apply to other properties in the vicinity in terms of size , shape,
topography, location or surroundings. Furthermore, approval of this project might set a
precedent in reviewing future projects.
FINDINGS
Variance No. 11
There are no special circumstances that apply to this parcel including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings that would deprive this property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification.
2. Economic hardship is not acceptable as a special circumstance in granting variances.
,
Approval of a Variance will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
situated.
Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1 was approved with a condition to pave the
parking lot.
,
The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel parking lot for any project and
approving this variance could set a precedent in reviewing future projects.
,
The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the future General Plan
in that it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel parking lots.
Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. 1
The project was originally approved with a condition to pave the parking lot; the
applicant agreed to this condition of approval on March 27, 1989 and the applicant has
not demonstrated an acceptable reason for not paving the parking lot other than economic
reasons.
S'~STAFtqtPT~I0605pp. PC 3
Section 18.12.b.l.b. of OrdinanCe No. 348 requires all parking lots to be paved;
approval of this Revised Permit will make this project inconsistent with Section
18. 12.b. 1.b. of Ordinance No. 348.
Section 9.4.b. of Ordinance No. 348 requires all projects with the C-1/C-P zone
designation to comply with all requirements of Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348;
approval of this Revised Pcrmit will make this project inconsistent with Article IX of
Ordinance No. 348 which is the requirements for C-1/C-P zoning designation.
The South West Area Plan (SWAP) requires all projects to be consistent with Ordinance
No. 348; approving this project, as demonstrated in Findings 2 and 3, will make this
project inconsistent with Ordinance No. 348, therefore, making it inconsistent with
SWAP.
The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the future General Plan
in that it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel parking lots.
The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel parking lot for any project and
approving this Revised Permit could set a precedent in reviewing future projects.
STAFF
RECO1VIM~ATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_ and Resolution No. 92-_ denying
Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1
and Variance No. 11 based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report.
vgw
Attachments:
5.
6.
7.
8.
Resolution (Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Rev. No. Permit 1 - blue page 5
Resolution (Variance No. 11 ) - blue page 9
Exhibits - blue page 13
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP
c. Zoning Map
d. Site Plan
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. I - blue page 14
Section 18.12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348 - blue page 15
Section 18.27 of Ordinance No. 348 - blue page 16
Applicant's letter and signature list - blue page 17
Section 9.4.d. of Ordinance No. 348 - blue page 18
s~rAFvm, ruo6o~.~c 4
ATTACHM!~NT NO. 1
RESOLIYHON NO. 92-
S~STAFFRP~I060~PP. PC ~
ATrA~ NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENYING
OF PLOT PlAN NO. 10605, AlV!RNDMRNT NO. 1, REVISED
PERMIT NO. 1 TO PERMIT A GRAVRI. PARKING LOT
ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.34 ACRES LOCATED ON
~ SOU'I~ SIDE OF MAIN STREET, 70 FEET WEST OF
MRRCEnES STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 922-044-022
WREREAS, To-Mac Engineering filed Plot Plan No. 10605 Amendment No. 1, Revised
Permit No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHY~REAS, said Hot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WIHi:REAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on May 18th, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WIIEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan.
NOW, T!~REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMIgSION OF THY~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RF~OLVE, DETER.MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Findings.
following findings:
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
SXSTAFPRFIM06~pp. PC 6
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Rivehide County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. PUrsuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
1 ~ The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state hw and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding pwperty.
3. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the proposed Plot
Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a. The project was originally approved with a condition to pave the
parking lot; the applicant agreed to this condition of appwval on March 27, 1989 and the
applicant has not demonstrated an acceptable reason for not paving the parking lot other than
economic reasons.
b. Section 18.12 .b. 1 .b. of Orditmnce No. 348 requires all parking lots
to be paved; approval of this Revised Permit will make this project inconsistent with Section
18.12.b.1.b. of Ordinance No. 348.
c. Section 9.4.b. of Ordinance No. 348 requires all projects with the
C-1/C-P zone designation to comply with all requirements of Section 18.12 of Ordinance No.
348; approval of this Revised Permit will make this project inconsistent with Article IX of
Ordinance No. 348 which is the requirements for C-1/C-P zoning designation.
d. The South West Area Plan (SWAP) requires all projects to be
consistent with Ordinance No. 348; approving this project, as demonstrated in Findings 2 and
3, will make this. project inconsistent with Ordinance No. 348, therefore, making it inconsistent
with SWAP.
e. The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the
future General Plan in that it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel parking lots.
f. The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel parking lot for any
project and appwving this Revised Permit could set a precedent in reviewing future projects.
S~TAI~I0605PP.PC 7
g. The Plot Plan as proposed does not conform to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is incompatible with the present and future development
of the surrounding property.
Section II. Environmental Compliance. This project has been recommended for
denial, therefore, no environmental determination has been made.
Section III, Conditions. That the City of Temecula planning Commission hereby
denies Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1 to permit a gravel
parking lot located south side of Main Street, 70 feet west of Mercedes Street and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 922-0~.A.-022; therefore no Conditions of Approval are proposed for this
project.
Section IV.
PASSED, DENw. r} AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
I tlERI,.Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of May,
1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COM1V~SSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~%'TAFI:rRP'I~IO(~IIPP-IW3: 8
ATTACttMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S%STAFFRP~I060SPP.PC ~
ATTACHMENT NO. Z
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOL~ON OF THY~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMF_,CI~A DENYING VARIANCE NO. 11
TO GRANT A REIiEF FROM SECTION 18.12.b.l.b OF
ORDINANCE 348 WHICH REQUIRES ALL PARKING LOTS
TO BE PAVED; LOCATED ON ~ SOUTH SIDE OF
MAIN STREET, 70 FEET WEST OF MERCEDES STREET
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-044-022.
WHEREAS, To-Mac Engineering fried Variance No. 11 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said
Variance on May 18, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Variance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding ~e
Variance;
NOW, TItERF, FORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THY~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Findings. That the Temecuh Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state hw that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements are met:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
s~^mu, ni~,os,.~ 10
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest potion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundariesi of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
C. Pursuant to Section 18.27(a), no variance may be approved unless the following
finding can be Imade:
1. Special circumstances exist applicable to a parcel of property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, whereby the strict application of this
ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity that is
under the same zoning classification.
D. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Variance, makes the
following findings, to wit:
1. There are no special circumstances that apply to this parcel including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings that would deprive this property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification.
Economic hardship is not acceptable as a special circumstance in granting
variances.
3. Approval of a Variance will constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is situated.
4. Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1 was approved with a condition
to pave the pa/king lot.
5. The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel parking lot for any project
and approving ithis variance could set a precexlent in reviewing future projects.
6. The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the future
General Plan in t.hat it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel parking lots.
E. Pursuant to SECTION E, the Variance proposed does not conform to the logical
development of its pwposed site, and may not be compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
Sectioni H. Environmental Compliance. This project has been recommended for denial,
therefore, no environmental determination has been made.
Section IH. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies
Variance No. I1 to permit a gravel parking lot located on the south side of Main Street, 70 feet
west of Mercedes Street, therefore no conditions of approval are proposed for this project.
Section IV.
PASSED, DENwI} AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
I ItE!~ERy CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of May,
1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIOn:
PIANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PI.ANNING COMMISSIONERS:
s~Amu,mo6~pp. pc 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
E,xHsRITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
ALIFORNIA
SITE
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. 1 & Variance No. 11
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: May 18, 1992
S~'TAFFIfit,~I G60~pp. pC
CITY OF TEMECULA
:D.U SITE
SWAP - Exhibit B
a_ SITE
I
Designation: Commercial
ZONING - Exhibit C Designation:
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. 1 & Variance No. 11
P.C. Date: May 18, 1992
C-1/C-P
SXSTA!~:RPT~I060$Pp. ImC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE:
Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. 1 & Variance No. 11
SITE PLAN
May 18, 1992
S~STA]rPRP~IG6OSPP.PC
ATTACH]V~.NT NO. 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR
PLOT PLAN NO. 10605, AIV~-~~ NO. 1
s~T~m,r~os~..~ 14
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING' DATE: 3-27-89
Tn-Mar Fn~irm~ring
41934 Main Street
Temecula. California 92390
PLOT PLAN I10. 10605 AHENDED NO. 1
ProJect Description: an expansion of
an existin office building
)ksSessor's%an:el No.: 922-044-002,003
p);~r~lArea: lemecula
The parrot,tee shall defend. tndenmlfy, Iml hold hamless the County of
Riverside. its agents, officers, and employees frm any claim, actton. or
proceeding agalnst the County of RIverside or its agents. officers. or
employees to attack, set astde~ votd, or annul, an approval of the County
of Riverside, lts advisory agencies, appeal hoards, or legislative body
concerning PPlO605 Amended No. 1 . The County of Riverside will
promptly notify the peal,tee of any Such claim, action, or proceeding
against the County of Riverside and will Cooperate fully in the defense·
If the County fatls to prmnptly notify the peat,tee of any such claim,
action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
petal,tee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify. or
hold hamless the County of Riverside·
Thts approval shall be used within two (~) years of approval date;
otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect Whatsoever. By
use is meant the beginning of substantial construction c~ntemplated by
this approval within the 1;.wO (_2} year period Which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
The develophen, of the prmtses shall conform substantially with that as
A , or as ended by these
shown on plot plan mmrked~/i~w~Exhtbtt~.~nded No. 1
conditions.
In the event the use bar, by permitted ceases operation for I period of one
(1) year or more, this lpprwal shall become null and void.
My outstde 11ghttng shall be hooded and dtrected so ms not to shine
dtrectly upon m4Jotntng property or public rights-of-way.
The m~pltcant shall erareply with the street Improvement recon~endations
~utltnmd tn tl~ C~unf~ bad Depmrbment tranmtttal dated 9-1-88 , a
copy of uhtch ts attached.
PLOT PLAN NO. 10605, AMENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department
transmtttal dated 8-23-88, a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordante with the Riverside County
Flood 'Control District transmittal dated B-16-B8, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate
section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated
8-24-88, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the Building and Safety letters dated B-11-BB
and 7-2O-BB.
The applicant shall comply with County Geologic Report No. 547 and with the
County Geologist letter dated 9-12-88, acopy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of building permitS, Certificate of Parcel Merger
No. 505 must have been approved and recorded.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance
of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and --~
Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the
intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This
certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific
seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence
or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures
must be demonstrated.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in' accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas
shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten {10)
feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than
thirty (30) inches.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit an
1B. 12'parking, landscaping and irrigation plot plan to the Planning
Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set forth in
Section 18.37 of Ordinance 348.
A minimum of 25 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 and as shown on the Approved
Exhibit A, Amended No. 1. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic
concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
PLOT PLAN NO. 10605 ANENDEO NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
17.
A minimum of 1 handicapped parking space shall be provided. Each parking
space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International SymbOl of Accessibility. The sign
shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at
the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from
the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at
a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each
entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by
22 inches in size with lettering not less than 1 inch in height, which
clearly and conspicuously states the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed
at or by telephoning
18.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place
shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of
accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain
clearance and/or permits from the following, agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fi re Department
lg.
20.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the following additional and/or
revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Parking and Circulation Plan to reflect one handicap parking stall.
Landscaping, Irrigation and Shading Plans
Building elevations shall be in substantial; conformance with that shown on
Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Color & Materials Board. Specific colors and
materials are as follows:
Material Color
Siding I x 12 Cedar board Ameritone paint
with 1 x 3 Cedar batts No. 2043C
(Amherst)
Trim Wood Ameritone Paint
No. 1UN36A (Omar)
Roofing Cedar shakes -
waterproofed
Windows E1 as s Ttnted
21. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. S~reening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
PLOT PLAN NO. 10605 ANENDED NO. 1
Conditions Of Approval
Page 4
e2- One frisk eR£1~sure v.~ieh is a(equatc te iRelOSC a total of tklo bins shal~-
bm le~tmd withim the pre3aGt, and shmll e Gongtr~ted prior to thc issu
anec o' 8ssuWsRey ;e....i~. Each enelHu';c shall be six fcct in height
-and sh-lt be '..&~ uith ,.Jsc~ blGek and d gatc ~ich scr~ns the bins
.fNm cmt~ml view. ()leted at Director's Hearing, 3-27-89)
23. Landscape sc~enin9 shall ~ designed to be opaque up to a minimm height
of six, (6) fat at maturity.
24. Landscaping plans shall inco~orate the ~e of specimn canopy t~es along
streets and within the parking a~as.
25. All existing specimn trees on the sub3eCt p~rty shall be preserved
wherever feasible. Where they cannot ~ preserved they shall be relocated
or replaced with speci~n trees as approved by the Planning Director.
26. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical
plans Submitted to the hpartment of Building and Safety for plan check
approval and shall comply with the ~quiremnts of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
27. This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Nitigation
shall be the application of the proper Unifom Building Code standards in
the developant of this project.
28. All existing structures on the subject property shall confoe to all of
the applicable ~quiremnts of Ordinance 348.
a litarc bicyclc ac~ss Io ~he projUgt mrmm. (Deleted at Director's
Heari~ , 3-~-B9
30. Prior to issuance of building peaits, pe~omance securities, ~n a~ounts
to be detemined by the Di~ctor of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls and fen~ces in accordance with the
approVed plan, and adequate mintenance ~f the planting for one year shall
~ filed with the )parent of Building' and Safety.
31. Prior to issuance of occupancy pemi~, =all ~ui~d landscape planting
and trrtgati~ shall have ~en installed and ~ in a condition acceptable
to the Di~ctor of Building and Safety. 'The plants shall ~ healthy and
f~e Of mds, disease or ~sts. The irrigation syst~ shall be properly
const~ct~ and tn go~ wrktng o~er.'
32. All utilities, except electrical lin~ rat~ 33kV or g~ater, shall be
instal led unde~und.
33. Prior to the sale of any structure as shown on Exhibit A Amended No. 1,
alan division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County
Ordt~nce No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance.
PLOT PLAN NO. 10605 AHENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 5
34.
Prior to any use allowed by this Plot Plan, the applicant shall obtain
clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section
that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with
Ordinance No. 34B.
35.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development.
Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a habitat
Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by the County ordinance or resolution.
36. All of the foregoing conditions shall he comlied with prior to occupancy
or any use allowed by this permit.
GM:rs
10-12-88
ATTACH1VIENT NO.
SECTION 18.1.2.B.1.B.
OF
ORDINANCE NO.
S~$FAI:r!~'R'~B106~PP'InC 15
serve, ~nd on t~'·t portton of the parcel where the erectton of ..
garages or carports ts pemttted. Parktrig shall be convenientlj~'
distributed throughout a rest dentt al project.
2. Hospitals, rest or convalescent ham·s, roomtrig and lodging houses',
and fraternt~ and sorority houses. Parking facilities shall be
located not more than 150 feet frg, the butlding which the parktn9
ts to serve; provided, however, that ·hospttal may provide
parking facilities BOre than 150 feet'from the butlding the
parktng is to serve so long as an automatic parking gate or
stmllar method of vehicular control ts Installed to tnsure that
the parktng lot ts used solely for hospttal purposes,
3. All Other Uses. Required parking Shall be located on the same
parcel of land as the use for which the off-street parktrig ts to
serve or on an adjoining parcel of land; except that tt may be
located on a parcel ·cross an alley tf the nearest boundary of the
parktng factltty is not more than 300 feet from the use It is to
serve and the parcel is tn a c~mmerctal zone. Two or more
commercial or Industrial uses may 3otntly develop and use requtred
parking facilities, but the mtntmom off-street parking required
for each individual use shall ra~atn the same and must be
provi dad.
b. Development Standards for Off-Street Parking Facilities. The following
standards shall apply to the development of all parking facilities,
whether the space is required or optional.
1. Surfacing. All parking areas and driveways used for access
thereto shall be surfaced as follows:
a, One and two-family residences, Where the residences are
located on parcels less than one-half acre in area, all
parking areas and driveways shall be paved with concrete,
asphaltic concrete, brick, or equal surfacing, If the parcel
ts one-half acre in area, or larger, all parking areas and
driveways shall be improved with at least three inches of
decomposed granite, or equal.
~--jr b. A11 other uses.
(1) Where 25% or more of the primary street frontage within
660 feet in each direction from the subject property,
counting both sides of the street, is in commercial,
mobilehome park, residential, or industrial use, all
parking areas and driveways shall be paved'with:
a. Concrete surfacing with a mtntmm thickness of 3~
inches and shall include expansion Joints, or
one-half gallon per square yard of penetration coat
oil, followed within six months by application of
one-fourth gallon par square yard of seal coat oil,
placed on a base of decomposed granite, or equal,
b. concrete paving compacted to m minimum
thickness of three inches on four inches of Class 2'
base. The base thickness can be varied base on the
receenendations of · preliminary soil report. The
structural section may be modified based upon the
recanmendattons of a Registered Civil Engineer.
156
ATTACHM'F..~ NO, 6
SECTION 18,27
OF
ORDINANCE NO, 348
S~,~T~6~pp. PC
Counct1, he shall make a emitten request to the Clerk of the
Board, If the mattjar is before the B~}ard of ~pervisors or to the
$ecretar~ of the Planntng Camtsslon, tf the matter ts before the
Planntng Cmmtsston or the East Area Planntng Council, The Clerk
or Secretar~ shall determine the rimbar of pages lnvolved and
requtre payment tn advance for the transcript at the current
rate,
/mended Effect1 re:
08-02-a4 : 348.2338)
o,-o,-.
03-%2-87 348,2670)
~(~ -)~ SECTION 18.27. VARIANCES.
BASIS FOR VARIANCE. Variances from the terms of this ordinance may be
granted when, because of spectal circastances applicable to a parcel
of property, including size, shape, topograp~, location or
surroundings, the strict application of this ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property tn the vicinity that
ts under the sane zontng classification.
A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of
property which authorizes a use or acttvi~ that is not othe~se
expressly authorized by the zone regulation ~vernlng the parcel of
property, but shall be limtted to modifications of property
-development standards, such as lot stze, 1or coverage, yards, and
park1 ng and 1 andscape requt ranants.
be
APPLICATION. Application for a variance shall be made in wrtttng to
the Planning Director on the foms provided by the Planning Department
and shall be accompanied by the fees set forth in Ordinance No. 671.
If the use for which the variance is sought also requires approval' of a
conditional or public use permit pursuant to the land division
ordinance, the t~o applications shall be filed concurrently.
(1) Applications for a variance that do not require an approval of a
conditional or public use pemlt or land division ordinance
approval shall supply the following tnfomation:
a, None and address of the applicant,
b, Evidence of ownership of the prentses or emitten permission
of the owner to make the application.
c, A statenant of the specific provisions of the ordinance for
~htch the variance is requested and the variance that is
requested,
d. A plot and development plan drawn in sufficient detail to
clearly describe the followring:
(1) Phystcal dimensions of property and structures,
231 Location of ex$sttng and proposed structures,
· Setbacks.
181
for an extension, the Planntng Dtrector shall review the application,
eB~I
matter on the regular agenda of the
Board. An extension of time may be granted by the Board upon a
determination that valid reason exists for :permtttee not using the
variance !within the required period of time. If an extension is
granted, the total time allowed for use of 'the variance shall not
exceed a period of three (3) years, calculated frm the effective date
of the issuance of the variance. The term "use" shall mean the
beginning of substantial construction for which the variance has been
granted, which construction must thereafter be pursued dtltgentl~ to
ca~pletton, or the actual occupancy of existing buildings or land under
the terms of the authorized variance. or the recording of the ftnal or
parcel map in connection with an rapproved land division. The effective
date of a variance shall be determined purSuant to Section 18.26 of
this ordt hence.
f. REVOCATION OF VARIANCE. Any variance granted may be revoked upon the
findings and procedure contained in Section 18.31.
Mended Effecttve:
08-28-1986 (Ord. 348.2612)
SECTION 18.28. CONDITIONAL USE PENITS. Whenever any section of this
ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be granted prior to the
establts)ent of:a use, the following provisions shall take effect:
APPLICATION. Every application for a conditional use parrot t shall be
made in writing to the Planntng Director on the forms provided by the
Planning Department, shall be accmpanted by the lilt rig fee as set
forth in Ordinance No. 671 and shall tnclude the following information:
(1) Name and address of the applicant.
(2) Evidence that he is' the owner of the pramtses tnvolved or that he
has:written permission of the owner tO make such application.
(3) A plot and development plan drawn in sufficient detatl to clearly
describe the following:
a. Phystcal dimensions of property and structures.
b. Location o: existing and proposed structures.
c. Setbacks.
d. Methods of circulation.
e. Ingress an egress.
f. ~ Utilization of property under the requested permit.
te
(4) Such additional information as shall be required by h
ap ltcatton form.
(5) Dt~ensioned elevations, including details of proposed materials
for el evati ons.
ADDITIONAL INFORHATION. When the application is for a conditional use
permit tO establish a mobilehome park, travel trailer park or
recreational trailer park, the following additional information is
required as part of the application:
183
(z)
(3)
(4) Nethods of circulation.
651 Ingress and egress.
Utilization of property under the requested permtt,
e. Such adcltttonal Information as shall be requ(red by the
application form.
Applications for a vail·rice that ·1so requtre approval of a
pemtt or land division, shall be accepted for ftltng only.tf the
principal application ts accepted, and shall set for the specific.
provisions of the ordinance for whtch the variance ts betng
requested.
]:f the application for I variance ts In connection with a land
dtvtston pursuant to the land dtvtston ordinance, the application
shall be construed to be a watver of any shorter ttme limitations
on processing both a vartance and a land division; Including time
limitations on appeals of etther application, so that both
applications ·re processed tn the publlc heartng held under
Section 18,26 ·S one untt to final dealston,
Ce
PUBLZC HEAR]:NG. A publlc hearing shall be held on all variance
applications tn accordance with the provisions of Sectton 18,26, and
all the procedural requtrenents and rtghts of appeal as set forth
theretn shall govern the hearing, Ali publlc hearings on variances
which requtre approval of a pemtt or land dtvtston shall be heard by
the heartng body whtch has Jurisdiction of the principal application,
All publlc hearings on variances which do not requ(re approval of a
pemtt or land dtvtston wtthtn the area of Jurisdiction of the East
Area Planntng Council shall be heard by the Counctl, and all publlc
hearings on variances whtch do not require approval of a pemlt or land
dtvtston outside the area Jurisdiction of the East Area Planning
Counctl shall be heard by the Planntng Camlssl'on,
CONDIT:ZONS. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions
as are necessary so that the adjustment does not constitute a grant of
spect·l privileges that ts Inconsistent with the 1tin(rations upon other
properties In the vtctntty and zone tn whtch the property Is situated,
and vhtch are necessary to protect the health, safety and general
we1 fare of the camtaunt
ee
USE OF VARIANCE. Any vartance that ts granted shall be used within one
year fram the effective date thereof, or within such additional ttme as
may be set ~n the conditions of approval, whtch shall not exceed a
total of 3 years, except that a variance tn connection with a land
dtvts(on may be used during the sme pertod of time that the land
division approval may be used; othervise the variance shall be null and
void. riotwithstanding the foregoing, tf a variance ts rtqu~red to be
used withtn less than three (3) years, the permittee may, prior to its
expiration, request an extension of ttme tn which to use the variance.
A request for extension of ttme shall he made to the Board of
Superv(sors, on foms provided by the Planning Department and shall be
filed with the Planning Director, ·cc~panted by · fee as set forth in
Ordinance No. 671. ifithtn 30 days following the flltng of m request
182
ATTACHM~ NO. 7
APPLICANT'S LETTER
AND
SIGNATURE LIST
s~,~aP'alo~p~.pc 17
CIVIl_ ENGINEFI:IIN~j ,SUHVEYINC~, - LAND PLANNING
February 20, 1992
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Application from To-Mac
Engineering for Appeal
to a Condition of Approval
PP 10605 - JN 2359
Dear Gary:
Per a phone call from your office, we hereby request to change
our application to one which iS a request to revise a
Condition of Approval and a request for a variance (to allow
gravel for the parking surface).
As to a reason that will give the City findings to support
our request, we offer the following:
State and Federal Regulatory agencies in many parts
of this nation have begun a move to revise existing
design standards to enhance the recharging of ground
water basins. One way to do this is to reduce the
amount of impermeable surfaces that prevent such
recharging. The gravel surface at To-Mac Engineering
accomplishes this objective.
In Southern California, the water shortages have
been a sober reminder of what could be a serious
problem if we continue with our past practices.
The gravel poses no problems with regard to health
nor safety. Our Handicap space is located within our
covered parking area on concrete thus providing easy,
weather-protected access.
As witnessed by the recent heavy rainfall, our parking
area has demonstrated excellent drainage for periods
of excessive rain.
Customer traffic at To-Mac averages approximately
i to 2 vehicles per day.
41934 MAIN STREET · TEMECUI. A, CA 92590 · (714) 676-5715 / {714) 676-5716 · FAX (714) 676-6306
We, therefore, respectfully request the same kind of support
from Staff and the Planning Commission as we have been pledged
by members of the Council.
Very truly yours,
cc:
Pat Birdsall
Karel Lindermans
Ron Parks
THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT EITHER CITIZENS WHO LIVE OR OWN
PROPERTY IN TEMECULA OR WHO DO BUSINESS IN TEMECULA AND WHO SUPPORT
TO-MAC ENGINEERING BEING ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO UTILIZE A GRAVEL
SURFACE FOR THEIR PARKING.
NAME ADDRESS
- ~o~a,~ cu~..,.: ..... r~c~,~__ ~ /
....... ~
~-- . ~-'~'.' ,... , ,
~......- .. -,.....~. , g /
t
I LIVE/OWN PROPERTY/DO BUSINESS IN TEMECgLA
IF YOU WISH TO WRITE A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF TO-MAC'S PARKING LOT IN
YOUR OWN WORDS, YOUR LETTERS ARE MOST WELCOME. YOU MAY ADDRESS THEM
TO: Attn: GARY THRONHILL, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF TEMECULA - PLANNING DEPT.
43174 Business Park Dr.
P. O. BOx 3000
Temecula, Ca. 92590
ATTACHIVIENT NO. 8
SECTION 9.4.D.
OF
ORDINANCE NO. 348
· t-~ d.
f~ont, rear and stale tot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by
whtch the hetght exceeds 35 feet, The front setback shall be measured
fran the extsttng street 11ne unless a speclftc plan has been adopted
tn which case tt wtll be measured from the spectfic plan street line.
The rear setback shall be measured from the extsttng rear lot 1the or
fran any recorded alley or easanent; tf the rear ltne ad;Jotns a street,
the rear setback requtrment shall be the sine as requtred for a front
setback, Each stde setback shall be measured from the stale lot line,
or frm an extsttng adjacent street 11ne unless a spectftc plan has
been adopted, tn which case tt w~11 be measured from the specific plan
s treat 1 tne.
All buildings and structures shall not-exceed 50 feet In height, unless
a het ght up to 75 feet, or greater than 75 feet for broadcasting
antennas, ts approved pursuant to Section 18.34 of the ordinance.
Automobile storage space shall he provided as required by Section 18.12
of this ordinance.
A11 roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be scPeened from the ground
elevation v~ew to a mtntmum stght titstance of 1,320 feet.
Amended Effecti ve: ,
01-15-64 (Ord. 348.251) 12-10-75
11-10-65 (Ord. 348.401) 04-21-77
01-19-66 (Ord. 348.422) 06-29-78
0944-72 :348.1070) 04-12-79
10-19-72 (Ord. 348.1091) 10-23-80
09-13-73 (Ord. 348.1201) 03-05-81
07-25-74 (Ord. 348.1349) 08-07-86
10-02-75 (Ord. 348. 1470) 06-30-88
11-13-75 (Ord. 348.1476) 05-04-89
08-10-89
10-05-89
(Ord. 348.1481 )
(Ord. 348.1564)
(Ord. 348.1647 )
Ord. 348.1926)
IO0;g 348.2591)
(Ord. 348.3023)
(Ord. 348.3047)
(Ord. 348.3053)
7O
ATTACHN~NT NO. 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEV!rJ~OPIVIE~ FEE
CASE NO.: Appeal No. 20
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-nat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 35
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. 6
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. 9
Condition No. 8
N/A
YES
ATTACHMP~NT NO. 5
CORRESPONDENCE
5XSTAFFRrI'X20AP!~CL..CC 9
Ronald I Parks
May~r
Patrlcla H. Birdsall
Mayor Pro Tem
Karel F. Llndemans
Councilmember
Peg Moore
Councilmember
J. Sal Mufioz
Councilmember
David F. Dixon
City Manager
(7141 694-19119
FAX 1714| 69~-1999
City of Temecula
4,3174 Business Park Drive · Ternecula, California 92590
October 31, 1991
Mr. John McMahan
TOMAC Engineering
41934 Main Street
TemeCula, CA 92591
Reference: Building Permit No. 1451
Dear Mr. McMahan:
A recent review of our files indicates that Building Permit No. 1451 for
construction at 41934 Main Street, Temecula, California, has not received
a final inspection nor has a Certificate of Occupancy been issued. A field
inspection further revealed that the structure is now occupied. This is a
violation of Section 307(a) of the 1988 Uniform Building Code which states:
Section 307.|a} Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall
be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy
classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be
made until the building official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy
therefore as provided herein.
EXCEPTION: Group R, Division 3, and M Occupancies.
Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall not be construed as an
approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other
ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give
authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.
Mr. John McMahan
October 31, 1991 -
Page 2
This will serve as your official notice and order to bring the premise~ into
compliance with City regulations within thirty (30) days from the date of
this notice· Compliance can be achieved by addressing the corrections
given to you on July 12, 1991, by the City Building Inspector which are:
Provide a self-closing door and the door must be of one-hour
fire resistance.
2. Provide handicapped parking with appropriate signing.
Obtain Planning and Engineering Department approval for the
use of a gravel parking lot !surface.
Failure to achieve compliance as directed will result in the matter being
referred to the City Attorney for appropriate legal action.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at
(714) 694-6439.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF TEMECULA
A~~~:TCB?
Chief Building Official
AJE/sf
Ronald ~L Parks
M~
Patrlcla H. Birdsall
M~/oF PrO
~1 F. Ll~s
J. ~1 Mu~z
C~il~r
C~ ~r
17141
F~ ~!4J 69~!~
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
December 2, 1991
Mr. John McMahan
TOMAC Engineering
41934 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92591
Reference: Building Permit No. 1451 - Final Approval
Dear Mr. McMahan:
This is in response to questions that were raised during our recent attempt
at final inspection of the above-referenced building permit. ~'he following
items shall be completed within forty-five (45) days from the date of this
notice to avoid renewal and repayment of building permit fees to be
required.
The door 'assembly" of the covered parking area and the
office shall have a minimum of a one-hour fire resistive rating.
e
The required handicapped parking space shall be located as
shown on the approved plan and signed and striped in
accordance with California Administrative Code regulations.
Applicable signing shall be placed at both the entrance to the
parking lot and the parking space. Please note that, as we
discussed, gravel surface is not appropriate for the
handicapped area and for obtaining building access.
Engineering Department approval for the gravel parking lot has
not been received. Please provide proof of acceptance of this
material.
Mr. John McMahan
December 2, 1991
Page 2
The provisions for providing a handicapped accessible restroom on the first
floor shall be complied with. InformatiOn regarding the plan modification
can be obtained by contacting Mr. Marlk Berg, Building Inspector, in this
office. Due to the inconvenience this may cause, work toward compliance
with this regulation should commence within forty-five (45) days and be
completed within ninety (90) days from the date of this letter.
Failure to achieve compliance with these items will result in permit #1451
expiring and payment of new fees to be, ordered. Further, the matter may
be forwarded to the City Attorney for appropriate legal action for the fact
that a Certificate of Occupancy for the use of this building has not been
issued. .
Your cooperation with these matters will be appreciated to avoid
unnecessary legal action to be taken. If you have any questions regarding
this matter, please contact Mr. Mark Berg at (714) 694-6439.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF TEMECULA
Chief Building Official
AjE/sf
ATTAINT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
s~s'r~~,~.cc 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
:ALIFORNIA
SITE
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1; Revised No. I & Variance No. 11
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
P.C. DATE: May 18, 1992
S~rA!=FIUrrXI060~pp. PC
SWAP - Exhibit B
~.U SITE
~P 180
SITE
Designation: Commercial
ZONING - Exhibit C
Designation: C-11C-F
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. I & Variance No. 11
P.C. Date: May 18, 1992
SXSTAFFR. PT~ 10605 PP. PC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 1060S, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. 1 & Variance No. 11
EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN
P.C. DATE: May 18, 1992
S~$TAPF~J'T~IOG~PP.IaC
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM:
DATE:
SUBIECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA I~gPORT
City Manager/Ci~ Council
Planning Department/'~ ~'~
June 23, 1992
Monthly Report
PREP~ BY:
RECOMMF~NDATION:
Discussion:
Caselo.~fl Activity:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
Receive and File
The following is a summary:of the Planning Depanment's caseload
and project activity for the month of May, 1992:
The deparUnent received applications for 24 administrative cases and 5 public hearing
cases. The following is a breakdown of case type for public hearing items:
* Tract Maps (3)
* Change of Zone (1)
* Variance (1)
Ongoing Projects:
General Plan: Special Joint Planning Commission/City Council meetings will be
held June 17 and 24, 1992, to discuss circulation element and land use map
respectively. To date, three runs of the lnf~c model have been made. Results
of these runs will be discussed on the 17th. The June 24 meeting is intended to
provide the Commission and Council an opportunity to comment on the land use
map. The Govemor's Office of Planning and Research has conditionally
approved the City's request for a time extension to complete the General Plan.
The extension is granted for a one year term ending May 26, 1993.
$~dONTRLY.II'rVsP~.g2 1
O~d Town Master Plan: Urban Design Studio (UDS) is curren~y preparing the
bsckground report for the Specific Plan. Stakeholder interviews between UDS
ar_d affected persons and' City officials were held on June 2 and 3, 1992 in
BUtterfield Square. The results of the interviews will be included in the
Background Report.
F~ench Valley Airport: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) consultant
is curren~y revising the first draft of the C mprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
(CLUP). A revised draft of the CLIYP sh~ld be available in early July.
T~mecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: This
Specific Plan was presented at a Planning!Commission Workshop on May 4,
1992. The Commissioners gave direction to applicant and staff.
Winchester Hills and C~n!pos Vetdes Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Re4~n: These Specific Plans were discussed as a Workshop-for the Planning
Commissioners May 4, 1992. The Planningi Commissioners gave direction to the
applicant and staff.
Murdy Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: This Specific Plan
was presented to the Planning Commission at a Workshop on April 6, 1992. The
C0mmi.~sion provided Staff and the applicant direction rehtive to design issues.
The applicant will be incorporating these changes into the Specific Plan.
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan: The Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is a mix of
residential land uses and a mixed-use" resort village" core area on 1,765 acres
located adjacent to Anza Road and Borel Road, north of Rancho California Road.
This Specific Plan was submitted in early March. The Notice of Preparation was
submitted to State Clearinghouse on April 17, 1992. A DRC meeting was held
for this Specific Plan on May 14, 1992. A subsequent DRC date has not yet been
set.
s~om~n.v.a~r~t.~a 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL:
CITY ATTORNEY
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
June 23, 1992
Building and Safety May Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
Building permit activity in May experienced a decrease over permit activity for April.
Building related permits totaled 292 as compared to 467 in April representing building
construction valuation of approximately $3,640,255. New housing starts for the
month totaled 23. The Department collected revenue totaling $ 39,201.
At the June 2, 1992, Public Nuisance Hearing on the Pujol property, the City was
successful in obtaining a Public Nuisance Declaration and approval to proceed with
abatement of the nuisance.
The following is an update of projects of special note that staff is currently involved
with and/or recently completed:
New Construction
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems
Hungry Hunter Restaurant
Spectrum Industrial Park
5 warehouse/office - Diaz Road
Creekside Gas & Food Mart
South Front Street
100%
60%
95%
70%
v:%wp~gende.rep\ocernO526.rpt
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
Honthly A~tivity Report For:
This Last Month
Month
PLANS CHECKED:
Residential 6 6
Commercial 12 7
Industrial/W.H. I 0
Others 8 5
TOTAL: 27 18
PERHITS ISSUED:
BUILDING 132
Value 3,640,255
Fees 26,162
ELECTRICAL 71
Fees 54 74
PLUMBING 44
Fees 4332
MECHANICAL 45
Fees 3233
TOTAL PERHITS: 292
TOTAL FEES: 39,201
THIS MONTHS NO. OF
PERMITS: PERHITS
SINGLE FAMILY 23
DUPLEX 0
MULTI-FAMILY 0
COMMERCIAL 0
INDUSTRIAL 0
RELOCATE / D EMO 0
SWIMMING POOLS 8
SIGNS 6
OTHER 43
ALTER/ADD
TO DWELLING 5 192
TO COHHERCIAL 9 121
TO INDUSTRIAL 2 2
TOTAL: 96 2,277
BUILDING VALUATION
This Fiscal Year to Date: 55,512,85I
Last Fiscal Year to Date: 77,299,434
This
Fiscal
Year
Last
Fiscal
Yr/Date
82
150
5
109
346
Mav
61
82
1
138
282
Last
Calendar
Yr/Date
12
59
4
22
97
I21 I132 1449 733
10,223,660 55,512,85I 77,299,434 37,758,292
70,499 299,005 415,259 176,520
149 834 1040 606
9,835 63,776 77,240 32,057
87 463 770 453
I3,973 41,030 65,242 37,917
110 487 564 388
6364 32,32I 27,976 15,939
467 2,916 3,823 2,180
100,671 436,132 585,717 262,433
NO/~NITS PLAN CHECK PERHIT TOTAL FEES
FISCAL ~R FEES FEES
250 8,272 19,762 28,034
0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
22 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
76 671 1,438 2,109
85 238 451 689
1,519 225 3,915 4,140
1,245 1,947
3,584 5,498
5,374 7,474
35,769 49,891
702
1,914
2,100
14,122
This Calendar Year to Date: 28,456,316
Last Calendar Year Co Date: 37,758,292
This
Calandar
Yr/Date
24
41
1
104
170
546
28,456,3]6
148,669
457
32,196
294
36,745
298
18,770
1,595
236,380
2,143,178
0
0
0
0
0
72,898
19,287
296,896
88,577
342,571
676,848
3,640,255
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works'
June 23, 1992
Public Works Monthly Activity Report (May)
PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, DirectOr of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Monthly Activity Report for May for the
Department of Public Works.
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICE~~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
JUNE 23, 1992
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D: NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
The Parks and Recreation Commission, at the June 8, 1992 meeting, recommended
that staff install five (5) rose bushes on the landscaped corner of Margarita Road and
Rancho Vista Road in Sports Park, in remembrance Of the five Temecula residents that
were involved in the accident that occurred on June 2o Staff is planning on
completing this project within the next thirty (30) days.
As a result of the accident that occurred at Temecula Valley High School, the City
scheduled four crisiscounseling sessions for teenagers at the Teen Recreation Center.
Representatives from the Riverside County Mental Health Department provided needed
advise, comfort, and most importantly, an opportunity to just talk. The Teen Council
was involved with these sessions. Based on the response that is received from the
teens at the Teen' Center, a follow up session may be scheduled.
A Project Committee meeting concerning the design development of the Community
Recreation Center (CRC) Project will be held on June 18. The purpose of this meeting
will be to discuss building materials, equipment requirements, acoustical impacts, and
landscaping improvements. A follow up meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 2.
Once the design development is completed, the development of construction
documents will begin.
Staff is still working with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to develop a
lease agreement for the pool facility at Temecula Elementary School. The school will
lease the facility to the City for $1.00 per year, and the City will be responsible for
the maintenance and repairs associated with the facility.
Our new Maintenance Superintendent; Bruce Hartley, has coordinated the installation
of a temporary shade structure over one of the playground sets at the Rancho
California Sports Park. This will be installed by June 30.
The Initial Bikeway Project was approved by the City Council on May 26. Bikeway
and No Parking signs have been ordered by Public Works and should be received by
the end of June. An additional two weeks will be required to install these signs by
City staff. A pre-construction meeting concerning the painting of bike lanes and
adjusting center street lines will be held on June 12 with Works Striping and Marking,
Inc. The existing street striping modifications will begin the week of June 15. Actual
painting of bike lanes are scheduled to begin within thirty (30) days.
The 1992 Summer/Fall Recreation Brochure has been bulk mailed to every resident in
the City. Several programs have been added since the winter/spring brochure. These
programs include the Teen Recreation Center programs; senior citizen programs at the
Temecula Community Center; tennis lessons; and a wide variety of special interest
classes and excursions.
Dean Davidso!n, a local architect, provided an update to the Parks and Recreation
Commission at the June 8, 1992 meeting concerning the Senior Center Project. A
Project Committee meeting will be held on June 12 to review the progress associated
with the Senior Center. The construction documents are expected to be completed
and ready to release for public bid by July 1. Construction is estimated to begin in
September, with completion scheduled for Decemiber, 1992.
The issuance of refund checks to affected property owners who were over charged
for slope maintenance services in FY 1990-91 were distributed on May 28. We have
received several positive comments from these property owners.
Staff is negotiating a scope of work and final price with the top ranked landscape
architectural firm for providing the design services for the Park Site on Pala Road.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD JUNE 9, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:11
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
PM.
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S.
Greek, City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar
Items 1 and 2.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks
NOES: · 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
1. Minutes
1.1
Approve the minutes of May 26, 1992.
Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31.1992 and the Statement of Revenues.
Expenditures and ChanQes in Fund Balance for the Nine Months Ended March 31,1992
2.1
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31,1992 and
the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 1992.
Minutes/060992 -1 - 0611 6/92
CSD Minutes
June 9.1992
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Slooe Maintenance Easement Vacation - Portions of Tract Nos. 20735-4, 20735-6,
21082-4 and 21082 in "The Villages"
Shawn Nelson presented the staff report.
President Parks asked if it is possible to keep the easements but give the Homeowner's
Association a license to maintain these easements.
City Attorney Field stated this is possible, however it would be difficult to administer.
He stated that the attached agreement accomplishes the same objective because the
City has the authority to enter the property and make the necessary corrections if
proper standards are not kept.
President Parks opened the public hearing at 8:20 PM.
Marilyn Sawyer, 30443 Danube Court, a member of the Board of Directors of the
Villages Homeowner's Association, stated a petition was mailed to all homeowners and
in addition the Board members went door-to-door. She reported 405 homeowners
were in favor of the Homeowner's Association maintaining the slopes and 34 were
against. She presented the petitions to the City Clerk for the record.
Clark Kegley, 41775 Humber Drive, Treasurer of Villages Homeowner's Association,
spoke in favor of the vacation. He reported that an estimated $30,000 would be saved
by the homeowners by this transfer·
Robb Van Kirk, 41756 Humber Drive, Vice President of the Villages Homeowner's
Association, spoke in favor of the vacation and stated the association agrees to make
the following items as conditions:
AssOciation agrees to abide by City's standard landscaping specification,
provided that such delineates in clear and understandable language the
minimum, acceptable landscape maintenance standards by which the quality
of the Association's landscape maintenance program will be evaluated·
The City, prior to taking any remedial actions in regards to the Association's
slope maintenance program, will provide the association, by way of its
management company, a written deficiency notice accompanied by a 30-day
cure period in which to correct the alleged deficiency.
David Micheal, 30300 Churchill Court, President of the Villages Homeowners
Association, spoke in favor of vacation.
President Parks closed the public hearing at 8:31 PM.
Minutes1060992 -2- 06116/92
CSD Minutes June 9.1992
President Parks announced that Director Mu~oz will abstain from this vote, since he
is member of the Villages Homeowner's Association.
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Lindemans to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 92-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT VACATING THE SLOPE MAINTENANCE
EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF TRACT NOS. 207354, 20735-6, 21082-4
AND 21082
3.2 Approve agreement for maintenance of landscaping with the Villages
Homeowners Association.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: I DIRECTORS: Mur~oz
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson reported that the first workshop dealing with
the 1992-93 Assessment will be held Thursday, June 1 l th at 6:00 PM, at the Teen
Recreation Center.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
DIRECTORS REPORTS
None given.
Minuteel060992 -3- 06/16/92
ITEM
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
JUNE 23, 1992
TCSD ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Adopt Resolution No. 92 - approving the rates and charges for Community
Services/Parks, Street Lighting, Slope Maintenance, and Recycling and Refuse
Collection services for Fiscal Year 1992-93.
DISCUSSION: The.. purpose of the TCSD assessments is to provide necessary
community services and programs which include parks and recreation services, arterial
street lighting and medians, residential street lighting, slope maintenance and
landscaping services, and recycling and refuse collection. The benefit zones, which
are referred to as service levels, are as follows:
1. Community Services/Parks.
2. Service Level "A" - Arterial Street Lighting and Medians.
3. Service Level "B" - Residential Street Lighting.
4. Service Level "C" - Slope and Landscape Maintenance Services.
5. Service Level "D" - Recycling Program and Refuse Collection.
The formula used to assess property owners for Community Services/Parks and
Service Level "A" is the same as last fiscal year. All property owners in the City of
Temecula will be assessed for Community Services/Parks and Service Level "A".
The proposed rate for single family residents is $58.30 for Community Services/Parks,
an increase of $8.40 from last year. This increase is due to the expansion of
community recreation facilities and programs which include the Teen Recreation
Center and the Senior Center.
The proposeq assessment for Service Level "A" is $4.18 per year for a single family
residence, an" increase of $0.74. This is due to the addition of three (3) traffic signals
within the City.
Service Level "B" includes only the property owners within residential subdivisions
that have street lighting services. The proposed rate is $30.88 per unit, a decrease
of $3.26 per year. This .decrease reflects the addition of residential homes to share
in the overall costs.
Concerning Service Level "C", only property owners within residential subdivisions
with TCSD maintained slopes and landscaped areas are included in this service level.
An analysis was completed by staff to determine the cost associated per property
owner for slope and landscape maintenance withina specific tract. As a result of this
process, it was determined that tracts exist that require less maintenance than in
other tracts. Hence, staff is recommending that four (4) rate levels be established in
Service Level "C". The rates are as follows:
Rate C-1: $ 50.00
Rate C-2: 93.00
Rate C-3: 120.00
Rate C-4: 179.00
No assessment increases are proposed for Service Level "C" . However, decreases are
proposed for some property owners due to lower maintenance costs per property
owner within a particular tract.
Service Level "D" provides the Recycling and RefuSe Collection Program for FY 1992-
93. This service level includes all detached, single family residents in the City of
Temecula. The proposed monthly rate of $13.26 for this service is not increasing
from last year. However, the rate for last year was based on nine (9) months of
service and not for a full year. Therefore, the proposed annual assessment is
$159.12, which provides for a full year of service.
In summary, the net increase of the five (5) service :levels for a single family residence
for FY 1992-93 is $5.88 per year.
FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue generated from the TCSD FY 1992-93 Assessments
vvill fund the parks and recreation; median and slope maintenance; street lighting; and
recycling and refuse collection services in the City of Temecula.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution adopting rates and charges for FY 1992-93
Annual Levy Report for the TCSD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS, STREET
LIGHTING, SLOPE MAINTENANCE AND
RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION
SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93.
WHEREAS, upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, California (the
"City") effective December 1, 1989, voters also approved the formation of the Temecula
Community Services District ('TCSD"), which has the same area and boundaries as the City
and whose Board of Directors (the "Board") consists of the members of the City Council of
the City; and
WHEREAS, that the TCSD proposes to continue such rates and charges for
community services and parks, street lighting, slope maintenance, as well as recycling and
refuse collection (the "Services and/or Facilities") for those areas specifically benefitted
thereby and charges by the county service areas or the TCSD for such services in prior fiscal
years; and
WHEREAS, the Board has requested the preparation of a report for Fiscal
Year 1992-93 containing the proposed rates and charges for filing with the Secretary of the
TCSD pursuant to the Community Services District Law being Division 3 of Title. 6 of the
Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 (the "Act");
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 61621.2 of the Act, an Engineer's Report for
Collection for the Fiscal Year 1992-93 (the "Report") had been presented and filed with the
Secretary of the TCSD which contains a description of the proposed Services and/or
Facilities to be provided and the proposed rates and charges for such Services and/or
Facilities, and a description of the parcels subject to the rates and charges. The Report is
based upon a budget adopted by the Board for the proposed Services and/or Facilities for
specific areas where such Services and/or Facilities are provided, including necessary staff
and administrative expenses.
WHEREAS, that the Board of Directors requested that staff provide mailed
notice on June 5, 1992, of the hearing of such rates and charges; and
WHEREAS, that notice of hearing was mailed and published as required by
law and the affidavits of publication and mailing are on file with the Secretary; and
WHEREAS, that at the public hearing conducted on June 2.3, 1992, as noticed,
the TCSD heard and considered all oral and written protests and comments by any
interested person concerning the proposed rates and charges or the method of their
collection; and
WHEREAS, that at the conclusion of the public hearing, the TCSD
modified/confirmed the rates and charges in the moUnts set. out on Exhibit "A" entitled
"Project Summary", attached and incorporated by this reference, confirmed their collection
on the tax roll and approved an appeal procedure; and
WHEREAS, that the TCSD further finds that based on the Report and
budget, the rates and charges as set out on Exhibit "A" are the reasonable cost of the
Services and/or Facilities to be provided by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 1992-93; and
WHEREAS, the TCSD proposes to collect such rates and charges at the same
time, in the same manner, by the same persons and together with and not separately from,
the general taxes for the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be delinquent at the same
time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such general taxes. All
laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of general taxes of the TCSD,
including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction,
cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to .such rates and charges. However,
ff for the first year the charge is levied, the real property to which the charge relates has
been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or ff a lien of a bona fide
encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which
the first installment of such taxes appear on the roll, then the charge, or the delinquency in
that charge, assessed pursuant to this section shall not result in a lien against the property,
but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
OF DIRECTORS OF THE
DOES HEREBY, RESOLVE,
Section 1. That the rates and charges for Fiscal Year 1992-93 as set out on
Exhibit "A" for the Services and/or Facilities are adopt6d for Fiscal Year 1992-93.
Section 2. That the TCSD shall collect such rates and charges at the same
time, in the same manner, by the same persons and together with and not separately from,
the general taxes for the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be delinquent at the same
time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such general taxes. All
laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of general taxes of the TCSD,
including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction,
cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such rates and charges. However,
if for the first year the charge is levied, the real property to which the charge relates has
been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide
encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which
the first installment of such taxes appear on the roll, then the charge, or the delinquency in
that charge, assessed pursuant to this section shall not result in a lien against the property,
but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection.
Section 3. That the application of the rates and charges may' be appealed
within thirty (30) days after payment of rates and charges pursuant to procedures established
by the TCSD.
~ection 4. That the secretary of the TCSD is ordered to transmit or cause to
be transmitted to the County AudiWr of the County of Riverside, California {the "County")
before August 10, 1992, the property tax roll with such rates and charges enumerated for
each parcel not exempt therefrom; and the County Auditor of the County is hereby
designated, required, empowered, authorized, instructed, directed and ordered to make
collection of all such assessments as shown on that roll and to perform any and all duties
necessary therefor.
Section 5. That pursuant to the California Environmemal Quality Act
CCEQA") the levy and collection of these rates and charges is exempt from CEQA pursuant
to Section 15273 of the State Guidelines and that the Secretary is instructed to file a Notice
of Exemption with the County Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of
,1992.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT
ATTEST:
President
Secretary
[SEAL]
-3-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
I, , Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District,
HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing CSD Resolution was duly adopted at
a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temocula Community Services District
on the __ day of , 1992, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES:
DIRECTORS:
ABSENT:
DIRECTORS:
Secretary
Exhibit A
PROJECT SUMMARY
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Muni Financial Services, Inc. was retained by the City of Temecula to prepare the Annual Levy
Report for the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD') for the Fiscal Year 1992/1993.
Pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State
of California, commencing with Section 61000 et seq. (~ct'), the TCSD has the power to levy and collect
special assessments in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished
byit.
The levy and collection of the special assessments is accomplished by the assignment of benefit
to each parcel within a specific benefit zone hereinafter referred to as "Service Level'. A Service Level is a
defined area that provides a specific service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those
parcels contained within that zone.
Last fiscal year, public interest and convenience required the reorganization of the existing zones
of benefit by the establishment of five city-wide Service Levels. The Service Levels and their service
descriptions are as follows:
1. Community Services/Parks: Service, operation, maintenance, improvements, and administration of the
City community park system, recreation facilities, services and programs.
2. Service Level A: Service, operation, maintenance, energy, and administration for all Arterial street lighting
and medians.
3. Service Level B: Service, operation, maintenance, energy, and administration for all local street lighting
within recorded subdivisions.
4. Service Level C: Service, operation, maintenance, improvements and administration for all perimeter
landscaping and slope maintenance within recorded subdivisions. This Service Level has four
specific rate levels.
5. Service Level D: Recycling program and refuse collection for all detached, single-family residential homes.
The Financial Analysis contained herein contains each Service Level Budget concluding with their
Totals for Fiscal Year 92/93 year to be as follows:
Commmunity Services/Parks:
Service Level A
Service Level B
Service Level C
Service Level D
TOTAL TCSD LEVY FY 91/92
ZONE BUDGET
$2,164,534
$ 154,776
$ 192,650
$ 433,705
$1,250,365
$4,196,030
RATE AREA BUDGET
Rate C1: $ 5,550
Rate C2: $ 96, 162
Rate C3: $ 98,040
Rate C4: $233,953
$/SFR
$ 58.30
$ 4.18
$ 30.88
$ 50.00
$ 93.00
$120.00
$179.00
$159.12
The Levy and Collection amounts for all non-exempt parcels within the TCSD for the Fiscal Year 1992/1993
are as shown on the Assessment Roll, Exhibit "B" on file with the City Clerk.
ANNUAL LEVY REPORT
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Fiscal Year 1992/1993
June 1992
Prepared by
MUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
42217 Rio Nedo, Second Floor
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 699-3990
Fax: (714) 699-3460
3727 Buchanan, Suite 202
San Francisco, CA 94123
(415) 441-3550
Fax: (415) 441-1401
ANNUAL LEVY REPORT
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Fiscal Year 1992/1993
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
RONALD J. PARKS
President
J. SAL MUI~IOZ
Vice President
PEG MOORE
Director
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
Director
KAREL LINDEMANS
Director
DAVID F. DIXON
General Manager
SCO'FI' FIELD
General Counsel
SHAWN D. NELSON
Director of Community Services
JUNE S. GREEK
Secretary to the Board
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................... I
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 2
Purpose of Project ......................................... 2
History of Project .......................................... 2
Importance of the Project .................................... 3
Authority and Procedure ..................................... 3
Definition of Terms Used for this Project ......................... 4
PROJECT STRUCTURE ......................................... 9
Zone Definition ........................................... 9
Boundary Definition ........................................ 9
Community Services/Parks .................................. 9
SERVICE LEVEL A - Citywide Arterial Service ..................... 10
SERVICE LEVEL B - Local Street Lighting Service .................. 10
SERVICE LEVEL C - Perimeter Landscaping/Slope Maintenance ........ 12
SERVICE LEVEL D - SFR Recycling/Refuse Collection ............... 12
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .......................................... 14
Budget Definition .......................................... 14
METHOD OF BENEFIT APPORTIONMENT AND FORMULA .............. 17
FORMULA I - Community Services/Parks and Service Level A ......... 17
FORMULA II- Service Level B and C ............................ 23
FORMULA III - Service Level D ................................ 25
ASSESSMENT ROLL ........................................... 26
AFFIDAVIT FOR ANNUAL LEVY REPORT ............................ 27
PROJECT SUMMARY
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Muni Financial Services, Inc. was retained by the City of Temecula to prepare the Annual Levy
Report for the Temecula Community Services District ("'I'CSD") for the Fiscal Year 1992/1993.
Pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State
of California, commencing with Section 61000 et seq. ('Act'), the TCSD has the power to levy and collect
special assessments in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished
by it.
The levy and collection of the special assessments is accomplished by the assignment of benefit
to each parcel within a specific benefit zone hereinafter referred to as "Service Level'. A Service Level is a
defined area that provides a specific service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those
parcels contained within that zone.
Lest fiscal year, public interest and convenience required the reorganization of the existing zones
of benefit by the establishment of five city-wide Service Levels. The Service Levels and their service
descriptions are as follows:
1. Communitv Services/Parks: Service, operation, maintenance, improvements, and administration of the
City community park system, recreation facilities, services and programs.
2. Service Level A: Service, operation, maintenance, energy, and administration for all Arterial street lighting
and medians.
3. Service Level B: Service, operation, maintenance, energy, and administration for all local street lighting
within recorded subdivisions.
4. Service Level C: Service, operation, rnaintenance, improvements and administration for all perimeter
landscaping and slope maintenance within recorded subdivisions. This Service Level has four
specific rate levels.
5. Service Level D: Recycling program and refuse collection for all detached, single-family residential homes.
The Financial Analysis contained herein contains each Service Level Budget concluding with' their
Totals for Fiscal Year 92/93 year to be as follows:
ZONE BUDGET
Commmunity Services/Parks: $2,164,534
Service Level A $ 154,776
Service Level B $ 192,650
Service Level C $ 433,705
Service Level D
TOTAL TCSD LEVY FY 91/92
$1,250,365
$4,196,030
RATE AREA BUDGET
Rate C1: $ 5,550
Rate C2: $ 96,162
Rate C3: $ 98,040
Rate C4: $233,953
$/SFR
$ 58.30
$ 4.18
$ 30.88
$ 50.00
$ 93.00
$120.00
$179.00
$159.12
The Levy and Collection amounts for all non-exempt parcels within the TCSD for the Fiscal Year 1992/1993
are as shown on the Assessment Roll, Exhibit "B" on file with the City Clerk.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Project
The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District finds and declares
that it is the policy of responsible government to encourage orderly growth and
development which are essential to the social, fiscal and economic well-being of the City.
The Board Of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District recognize that the
logical formation and determination of special funding districts is an important factor in
promoting orderly development and proper application of benefit to constituents within
such a district.
The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District acknowledge that
urban population densities and intensive residential, commercial, and industrial
development necessitate a broad spectrum and high level of community services and
programs.
When areas become urbanized to the extent that they need the full range of community
services, priorities are required to be established regarding the type and levels of services
that the residents of the City need and desire.
Community service priorities are established by weighing the total community service
needs against the total financial resources available for secudng community services, and
those community service priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, conditions
and limited financial resources.
-Therefore, the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District find and
declare that the need and priorities of the growing City of Temecula necessitate the
continuance of the service and funding abilities provided within the mechanism of a
Community Services District.
The purpose of the existing Temecula Community Services District (heroinafter referred
to as TCSD) is to provide the financial resources necessary for securing and continuing
vital community services and augmenting limited financial resources for the growing City
of Temecula.
History of Project
Prior to the incorporation of the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside had formed
and maintained County Service Areas 75, 103 and 143. These County Service Areas
(CSA) provided necessary services to a rapidly developing area soon to be proposed for
city incorporation by a vote of the constituents currently receiving the benefit of the CSA
services.
2
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, on May 2, 1989, approved and
ordered to the voters, the confirmation of the City of Temecula and the formation of a
Community Services District as a subsidiary district of the City.
On the effective date of incorporation, the boundary of the Temecula Community Services
District became coterminous with the city limit of the City of Temecula. The effective date
of the incorporation of the City of Temecula and the formation of the Temecula
Community Services District was December 3, 1989.
Importance of the Project
The services that are provided by the TCSD have been and will continue to be those
services required to serve the needs of a growing community, Though still in the post-
incorporation stage with many comprehensive city services yet to be finalized, the City of
Temecula is very fortunate to offer its citizens the diverse community services provided
by the TCSD, W*~hout the revenue generated by this special district, the following
community services could be seriously without funds to function:
· Citywide Community Park Services
· Citywide Recreation Programs
· Citywide Street Lighting Operation and Maintenance
· Citywide Median Maintenance
· Local Street Lighting Systems
· Local Perimeter Landscaping
· Local Slope Protection
Furthermore, vital programs to address our environment, such as citywide recycling and
refuse collection for the residents within the City, would not receive the necessary
consideration for implementation if funding vehicles and cost saving collection programs
for such an implementation were not available.
Authority and Procedure
Community Service Districts are authorized purSuant to the Community Services District
Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing
with Section 61000 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the CSD Law).
The CSD Law has the power to levy and collect special taxes in order to carry on its
operations and provide the services and facilities furnished by it. A CSD has the power
to prescribe, revise and collect rates and charges. As the public interest and convenience
require, the existing zones of benefrt within the TCSD may be reorganized.
'-- 3
Rates and charges, and any related delinquencies, may be collected on the tax roll in the
same manner and time as general taxes provided certain procedures are followed.
Each year the governing board of the CSD (the City Council of the City of Temecula
presides as the Board of the TCSD) must cause a "Report" to be prepared and filed with
its Secretary which contains the description of each parcel of real property within the CSD
and its related reorganizations, zone creation, and rates and charges for the upcoming
fiscal year.
A public hearing addressing the contents of the "Report" is necessary. Notice of the filing
of this "Report" and of the hearing must be given in a newspaper of general circulation
once a week for two successive weeks and by mail to each person who owns a parcel
which will be subject to the CSD rates and charges.
The CSD then holds a public hearing in which the Board of the CSD considers all
objections 0..r protests or revise any rate and charge subsequent to adopting the "Report"
as final.
On or before August 7th, the Secretary of the CSD files a copy of the 'Report" with the
County of Riverside Auditor/Controller with a statement endorsed thereon by the
Secretary that the report has been finally adopted by the Board. The Auditor then places
the rates and charges on the tax roll; and the rates and charges become a lien against
the parcels.
The TCSD is updated, implemented and reviewed for collection every year by the above
procedure to ensure due process and disclosure of the annual service and funding
· requirements as they relate to the property receiving benefit from the District.
Definition of Terms Used for this Project
Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, the definitions contained in this section
govern for the clarification of the intent and purpose of the project.
Acre(s)/Acreage: The amount of total net area for a lot of record translated as
acreage amount (where one acre equals 43,560 square feet)
as found on the latest Assessor Parcel Maps of the County of
Riverside at the time of CSD update.
Arterial:
W'~hin the Southwest Area Community Plan Circulation
Element of the County of Riverside, those streets which are
classified to be Arterial Streets and their related appurtenant
amenities and facilities.
4 ~
Assessor Parcel Map:
Assessor Parcel No.:
Assessor Parcel Tape:
Assessment:
Assessment Roll:
Assessment Levy:
Authority:
Benefit:
Benefit Zone:
Board of Directors:
Boundary:
The latest County of Riverside Assessor Parcel Maps as found
on file in the Office of the County Assessor.
The parcel identification number found on the latest assessor
parcel map of the County of Riverside.
The latest public information tape generated by the County of
Riverside Assessor Office which contains information
regarding assessor parcels.
Pursuant to the formula to assign benefit, the resulting dollar
amount to be collected and placed as a lien upon a non-
exempt parcel within the TCSD for the benefit received.
Official collection listing of all parcels within the boundary of
the TCSD which discloses every non-exempt parcel with its'
corresponding benefit assessment.
Same as Assessment.
Community Services District Law, Division 3 of T'ffie 6 of the
Government Code of the State of California, commencing with
Section 61000 et seq. (heroinafter referred to as the CSD
Law).
Defined facility, program, service, maintenance, operation and
administration provided by the TCSD which is perceived to
enhance the desirability and value of a non-exempt parcel if
it is received as opposed to the absence of such.
Refer to "Service Level" on page 8 of this Report.
The governing body charged with the duty to oversee and
direct the proceedings of the TCSD. The Board of Directors
of the Temecula Community Services District presides as the
Board for the TCSD.
For all benefit zones within the TCSD, their boundaries
(benefit areas) are defined to be coterminous with the City
Limit of the City of Temecula.
Budget:
The ltemization of all costs for facilities, programs, services,
maintenance and operation, and administration of the TCSD.
5
city:
City Clerk:
City Council:
C~ Limit:
Citywide:
Collection:
Community Service:
County:
County Assessor:
County Auditor: -
County Controller:
County Recorder:
Developed Property:
District:
The City of Temecula.
The City Clerk of the City of Temecula.
The City Council of the sCity of Temecula.
The incorporated city limits of the City of Temecula as it exists
at the time of the TCSE] fiscal year update.
Being applicable to all of the non-exempt parcels within the
incorporated city limits of the City of Temecula.
On or before August 10th, the Secretary of the CSD files a
copy of the "Report' with the County of Riverside
Auditor/Controller with a statement endorsed thereon by the
seoretary that the repOrt has been finally adopted by the
Board. The auditor then places the rates and charges on the
tax roll and the rates and charges become a lien against the
parcels.
Program defined and .contained within the Budget of the
TCSD.
The County of Riverside, in the State of California
The County of Riverside Assessor.
The County of Riverside Auditor.
The County of Riverside Controller.
The County of Riverside County Recorder.
Non-exempt parcels Which have been assigned per the
County of Riverside property status code, other than a vacant
or agricultural land use code, and have been conferred a
Certificate of Occupancy.
The Temecula CommUnity Services District or TCSD.
Equivalent Dwelling Unit: Defined benefit related to all single-family residential parcels
(1.0 EDU) which is ~quated to all other land use code
Exempt Parcel(s):
Fiscal Year:
Financial Analysis:
Land Use Code(s):
Local Street Light(s):
Maintenance:
Median:
N on-Exempt Parcel (s):
Notice of Public Hearing:
designations for assignment of an equitable benefit
assessment.
All parcels defined by government code and TCSD formula to
be contained in the following classifications:
- Parcels owned by federal, state, county and city
agencies,
- Parcels owned by regional municipalities,
- Parcels owned by public school districts,
- Parcels owned by private property homeowner
associations,
- Parcels owned by public utility companies,
- Parcels assigned the Land Use Code
C21: Cemetery.
The Fiscal Year 1992,1993.
The annual review of all the TCSD Zone Budgets --costs,
expenditures, surpluses and delinquencies--for the TCSD in
the Fiscal Year 1992-1993.
The County of Riverside property coding system used to
identify properties and to apply special assessments.
Street lights which are located on public, residential streets
within residential subdivisions.
Within a Zone; The re-occurring attention or activity to a
slope, park, median, or related public facility and applying the
receipts from the special collection for the continued
maintenance within the specific Zone.
Delineated divider areas within the Arterial street system.
Those parcels within the TCSD which are not classffied as
Exempt Parcels.
Official mailing to each non-exempt parcel property owner, as
of the latest equalized assessor roll of the County of Riverside
at the time of the mailing, which discloses the time and place
of the TCSD Public Hearing as set by the Board.
Parcel:
The Assessor Parcel as found on the latest County of
Property Owner(s):
Recycling Program:
Refuse Collection:
Resolutions:
Service Level:
Single-Family Detached
Residential Parcel:
Vacant Property:
Weighing Factor.'.
Zone:
Riverside Assessor ParCel Map(s).
Landowner, assessor parcel owner as of the latest equalized
assessor roll of the CoUnty of Riverside at the time of the
TCSD update.
State of the art program for the reclamation of useable
materials collection of which will be newly established this year
by the TCSD.
W'~in the TCSD, refuse collection service provided only to
detached, single-family residences.
The official procedural documents for the update,
implementation and collection of the TCSD for the Fiscal Year
1992-1993.
A Zone; the furnishing of a specific service which is
specifically authorized to be provided, and apply the receipts
from the special collection within that Zone to the
continuance of a specific service.
An assessor parcel that The County of Riverside assigns the
Land Use Code designation R01.
An assessor parcel that The County of Riverside assigns the
Land Use Code designation "Y' after the primary classffication
code.
That factor contained within the Method of Benefit Assignment
formula which equates 1.0 EDU per parcel to all land use
codes appearing within the data base for the TCSD.
Benefit Area; Service Level
PROJECT STRUCTURE
Zone De~ni#on
Pursuant to CSD Law, Zones may be established within a district for levying special taxes
to provide the construction, maintenance and operation of improvements or the furnishing
of services Where in the judgment of the Board, the improvements or services will not be
of district wide benefit.
The TemecUla Community Services District has established zones of distinct benefit called
Service Levels. Each of the separate TCSD Service Levels provide a specific benefit and
are defined to provide this benefit to certain non-exempt parcels.
Boundary Definition
The boundary for each of the separate TCSD zones is defined to be coterminous with the
City Limit of the City of Temecula as it existed when the Fiscal Year 1992-1993 update
was made.
The following are the Service Levels of Benefit for the Temecula Community Services
District:
Cornrnunityi Sen/ices/Parks
This Zone will provide the operation and maintenance of the entire City community park
system, recreation facilities, services and programs.
Ust of City Parks and
Recreational Facilities:
1. Sports Park, Corner of Margarita/Rancho Vista
2. Sam Hicks Monument Park, Corner of Mercedes/Moreno
3. Veterans Park, Corner of La Serena/General Kearney
4. Park Site, Corner of Avenida De La Reina/Corte Talvera
5. Park Site, Corner of Avenida De La Reina/Corte Aragon
6. Teen Recreation Center, 28780 Front Street, Suite D-4
7. Senior Center, adjacent to Sam Hicks Monument Park
Description:
The Temecula Community Services District ('I'CSD) is
responsible for providing three functions: (a) recreation
services, (b) park planning and development, and (c)
landscape services. The TCSD is governed by the Board of
Directors (City Council), who set the programs, services and
capital development to be provided to the Citizens of
Temecula.
9
Goals:
Key Objectives:
Community Services/Parks will expand recreation
opportunities through the acquisition, improvement and
development of new park facilities, and the rehabilitation of
existing facilities.
Recruit, hire, and train recreation personnel that will provide
a wide variety of recreational opportunities and pursuits.
Develop a comprehensive financing package to include the
acquisition of park land and the development of recreation
facilities.
SERVICE LEVEL A - Citywide .~al Service
This Service Level will provide servidng, operation, maintenance, energy and
administration for all Arterial street lighting and medians. For Service Level A Levy, refer
to Exhibit "B".
THIS SERVICE LEVEL CONSISTS OF ALL ARTERIAL STREETS WITHIN THE CITY
AS DEFINED BY SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN (SWAP) FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993, ALL NONEXEMPT PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY
LIMITS 13,871 PARCELS WILL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SERVICE LEVEL
SERVICE LEVEL B - Local Street Lighting Service
This Service- Level will provide servicing, operation,
administration for all local street lighting.
maintenance, energy and
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SERVICE ILEVEL IS 6,239.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY-SERVICES DISTRICT
Service Level B / Local Street Lighting Service
BOOK/PAGE PRCLS/PG,BK
i
911 - 20 73,
911 - 21 97
911 - 25 30
911 - 26 98
911 - 29 89
9.11 - 33 63
911 - 47 62
911 - 48 30
911 - 49 64
911 - 50 68
911 - 51 97
911 - 59 87, 858
914 - 58 29
914 - 59 71
914 - 61 67
914 - 62 50
914 - 63 67
914 - 64 44
914 - 66 43
914 - 67 65
914 - 68 57, 493
918 - 29 97
918 - 30 90
· 918 - 31 83
918 - 32 84
918 - 33 72
918 - 34 33
918 - 35 33, '492
9!9 - 36 37
919 - 37 48
-919 - 38 96
919 - 39 28
919 - 40 1
919 - 41 1
919 - 42 40, 251
92! - 09 1
921 - 37 1
921 - 38 52
921 - 39 29
921 - 41 46
921 - 42 44
921 - 43 61
921 - 44 22
921 - 45 88
921 - 46 40
BOOK/PAGE PRCLS/PG,BK
921 - 47 46
921 - 49 99
921 - 50 94
921 - 51 48
921 - 52 62
921 - 53 36
921 - 54 49
921 - 55 52
921 - 56 43
921 - 57 45
921 - 58 41
921 - 59 43
921 - 60 58
921 - 61 71
921 - 62 39
921 - 63 26
921 - 64 32
921 - 65 23
921 - 66 44
921 - 67 16
921 - 69 14, 1,365
922 - 02 13
922 - 04 2
922 - 22 2
922 - 27 69
922 - 28 86
922 - 29 75
922 - 31 79
922 - 32 68
922 - 33 60
922 - 34 97
922 - 35 32, 583
944 - 03 72
944 - 04 24
944 - 05 29
944 - 23 43
944 - 24 42
944 - 25 40
944 - 26 35
944 - 27 35
944 - 28 29
944 - 30 38
944 - 32 3, 390
945 - 04 21
945 - 19 17
BOOK/PAGE PRCLS/PG,BK
945 - 20 12
945 - 21 46
945 - 22 36
945 - 23 41
945 - 24 31
945 - 25 1
945 - 26 4
945 - 27 69, 278
953 - 07 72
953 - 08 57
953 - 09 29
953 - 10 59
953 - 1t 41
953 - 12 49
953 - 13 26
953 - 14 28
953 - 15 39, 400
954 - 04 43
954 - 05 43
954 - 07 76
954 - 08 69
954 - 09 32
954 - 10 46
954 - 11 42
954 - 12 44
954 - 13 40
954 - 14 47
954 - 15 29
954 - 16 61
954 - 17 23
954 - 18 49
954 - 19 49
954 - 20 28
954 - 21 32
954 - 22 31
954 - 23 49
954 - 24 54
954 - 25 43
954 - 26 42
954 - 29 19
954 - 30 1
954 - 31 58
954 - 32 45, 1,095
955 - 07 34, 34
TOTAL: 6,239
11
SERVICE LEVEL C- Perimeter Landscaping/S/ope Maintenance
This Service Level will provide for the servicing, operation, maintenance and administration
for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance within recorded subdivisions. There
are four (4) service rate areas within Level C which consist of the following:
SUBDIVISION NOS.
18518 21675
20130 21764
20643 21765
20644 22203
20879 22204
20881 22208
20882 22593
21340 22715
21561 22716
21672 22915
21673 23128
21674
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993, THERE WILL BE 3,269 PARCELS WITHIN
THIS SERVICE LEVEL.
12
SERVICE LEVEL D - SFR Recycling/Refuse Collection
This Service Level will provide for a Recycling Program and Refuse Collection for all
detached, single-family residential homes.
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993, THERE WILL BE 7,858 DETACHED
SINGE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN THIS SERVICE LEVEL
Exempt Parcels
ALL EXEMPT PARCELS ARE DESIGNATED WITHilN THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS:
LAND USE CODE "999"
THIS DESIGNATION HAS BEEN ASSIGNED BYTHE ENGINEER OF WORK DUE TO THE
FACT THAT THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE OR DIFFERENTIATE
THE EXEMPT STATUS OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL IN CONSIDERATION OFTHE VARIOUS
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ONGOING IN THE COUNTY.
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993, THERE ARE 325 EXEMPT PARCELS.
14
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Budget Definition
Each year the governing Board of the CSD (the City Council of the City of Temecula
presides as the Board of the TCSD) must cause a "Reporf' to be prepared and filed with
its secretary which contains the description of each parcel of real property within the CSD
and its related rates and charges for the upcoming fiscal year.
The Financial Analysis section of the "Report" itemizes the budgets for each of the Service
Levels. Within each of the following Service Level budgets will be the specific costs, fees,
expenditures, surpluses, deficits, delinquencies and appropriate City administration
judged by the Board of Directors for the TCSD to be applicable within the Fiscal
Collection Year 1992/1993.
The Service Level Budget Total, found at the end of each budget, is that dollar amount
to be apportioned to each of the non-exempt benefitting parcels within that particular
Service Level.
All budget information contained in the following Service Level Budgets were provided by
the City of Temecula by request of the Board of Directors for the TCSD. All amounts
listed are in 1992 dollars free of inflationary factors.
Any questions regarding the content or dollar amounts within the Budgets should be
directed to the Finance Department of the City of Temecula.
--- 15
CITY OF TEMECULA
OPERATING BUDGET DEPARTMENT SUMMARY - TCSD
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1993
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL STAFFING LEVELS
~ommunity Service District
Seniors
ACCOUNT#
196
Teens
Total
Level A Level B Level C Level D
FY 92-93 FY 92-93 FY 92-93 FY 92-93
Reques~ Request Bequest Request
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Number of Staff
13.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 15.00
Salaries &Wages 5100 376,102 19,003 25,938
Deferred Compensation 5101 0
P.E.R.S. Retirement 510~ 53,564 2,706 3,6i4
State Unemployment 5103 5.642 285 389
Medicare - F.I.C.A. 5164 5,453 276 376
Auto Allowance 5106 0
Unemployment Training Tex 5103 376 19 26
Worker's Compensation 5112 22.962 891 1,217
Healffi Beneffis 5113 70,566 5,880 5,880
Temporal/Help 5118
Part-Time (project) 5119 6,474 25.896
Part-Time Retirement 5120 0
534.665 35,534 63.416
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Telephone Service (Cellular) 5208 4,000 2,000
Messenger 5210
Repair & Mint-Facilities 5212 70,000 11,420
Office Supplies 5220 10,000 1,070
Printing 5222 30,000
Legal Documents/Maps 5224 3,000
Dues &Memberships 5226 1,500
Publications 5228 1,000
Postage &Packaging 5230 6,000
Rent - Office 5234 2,000
Rent - Equipment 5238 10,000
Equipment Lease 5239 10,380
Utilities 5240 100,000 8,280
Small Tools/Equipment 5242 8,000
Uniforms 5243 5,000
Signs 5244 3,000
Legal Services 5246 10,000
Consulting Services 5248 5,000
Other Outside Services 5250 170,000 600
Advertising 5254 5,000
Public Notices 525~ 1,000
Conferences/Education 5258 8,000
Mileage 5262 2,500
Fuel expense 5263 3,000
Blueprints 5268 500
RecrNffion Supplies 5300 10.000 5,000
Arterial Street Lighting 5500
Landscape Maintenance 5510
Assessment Administration 5525 15.260
Initial CSD Engineering 5530
Waste Hauling New
City Administration Charge 5540 227,704
721,844
28,370
6,000
1,070
40,500
7,680
600
5,000
43,443
153,536
421,043 11,583 17,383 43,498
0
53,964 1,650 2,476 6,195
6,316 174 261 652
6,105 168 252 031
0
421 12 17 43
25,070 543 103 2,040
92,326 2,646 5,880 9,114
0
75,813
0
677,055 16,776 26,452 62,173
87,420
12,140
30,000
3,000
1,500
1,000
6,000
42,500
10,000
10,380
115,960
8,000
5,000
3,000
5,000
171,200
5,000
1,000
8.000
2,500
3,000
183,536
15,260
227,704
976,600
10,000 82,547
118,000 166,218
10,000 286,693
2,292
138,000 153,218 371,532
1,253,365
16
CITY OF TEMECULA
OPERATING BUDGET DEPARTMENT SUMMARY - TCSD
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 ·
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL STAFFING LEVELS
196
Tee~s Recreation
197 198
Total
C.y-wk,e
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Liability Insurance 29.442 29,442
Vehicles 31,840 31.840
Computers and Telephones 70,108 70,108
Copy Center 40,906 40.906
$ 172,256
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Off'me FumLshing$ 5600
Office Equipment 5602 1,000
Vehicles 5608
Equipment 5610 6,620
GIS Data Base 5626
Sueet Banners 5630
land 5700
Bond Proceeds 51)1 505,000
512,820 0 0 0
172,296
5~2.6~0
Level A Level B Level C Level D
FY 92-93 FY 92-93 FY 92-93 FY 92-93
Request Request Request Request
0 0 0 0
RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY
1,~1,4~ ~,904 1~,266 206,979
2,338,~4 1~,R6 192,650 433,7~ 1,256,565
Recreation User Fees
Assesment Levy for City-Wide
Total City-Wide
Total Assesmerit Levy
174,040
2,154,534
2,338,574
2,154,534 154,776 1~,6~ 433,7~ 1,2~,~5
17
METHOD OF BENEFIT APPORTIONMENT AND !FORMULA
The Service Level Budget Totals are the amounts to be apportioned to all non-
exempt parcels within the respective Zone.
This amount is apportioned by a method and formula which faidy distributes the
Service Level Budget Total among all non-exempt parcels in proportion to the estimated
benefits to be received by each of the non-exempt parcels from the described services,
programs, etc. provided within the respective Service Level.
For the Fiscal Year 1992/1993, there will be three basic formulas for the
apportionment of the Service Level Budget Totals. The formula usage by Service Level
is as follows:
FORMULA I - Community Services/Parks and Sen/ice Level A
Both of the above Service Levels will assess all non-exempt parcels within' their boundary.
Therefore, being a citywide levy, all land use codes occurring within the above Service
Levels are equated by use of a weighing factor.
The formula used to calculate the amount of spread to all parcels starts with the basic
Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The EDU is given a value of one (1.0) for a single-family
(Land Use Code R01) parcel. From this base, all other occurring non-exempt parcels
have been equated to the single-family residence using weighing factors to distinguish the
different levels of benefit. A minimum assignment of 1.0 EDU per parcel is assigned where
the EDU's are computed based on parcel acreage.
A = Service Level Budget Total
B = Total Single-Family Dwelling Units
(SF)
C
= Number of Multi-Family Dwelling Units
(MF)
DR
= Acres of vacant Residential (Greater than one acre),
Non-residential Agricultural, Commercial
and Industrial (Improved) and Vacant Commercial,
Industrial, and Other
(AC)
E
= Weighing Factor for Multi-Family Residential
Parcels
= 0.75
F1
= Weighing Factor for Vacant Residential (YR)
(Greater than one acre)
G
H
J
K
L
M1
M2
N
O
P
= Weighing Factor for Vacant Residential (YR)
(Less than one acre)
= Weighing Factor for Agricultural
= Weighing Factor for Commercial and Industrial
(Developed)
= Weighing Factor for Vacant Commercial,
Industrial and Other
= Total Equivalent Single-Family Dwelling Units
= ASsessment per Single-Family
= ASsessment per Multi-Family
= ASsessment per Vacant Residential Parcel (YR)
(Greater than one acre)
= ASsessment per Vacant Residential Parcel (YR)
(Less than one acre)
= ASsessment per Agricultural Acreage
= ASsessment per Commercial and Industrial
(Improved) Acreage
= ASsessment per Vacant Commercial, Industrial
and Other Acreage
= 0.50
= 0.50
= 6.00
-'- 19
FORMULA
J ~--'
K =A/J
L =KxE
M1 = K x F1
M2 = KxF2
N --KxG
O =KxH
B + (C x E) + (Dn x F) + (Dn x G) + (Dn x H) + (Dn x I)
P --Kxl
COMMUNITY SERVICE/PARKS - FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993
The assessments for non-exempt parcels within the Community Services/Parks are as
follows:
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family
(Includes Aparfinents, Condominiums,
Mobile Homes)
Residential Vacant
Agriculture
Non Residential (Improved)
Non Residential (Vacant)
58.30 per unit
43. 74 per unit
116. 60 per acre
29. 16 per acre
349.80 per acre
233.20 per acre
21
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Community Services/Parks Levy Summerization
LUC PARCELS ACREAGE
999
A01
A02
A10
A12
A14
A19
A20
A60
C01
C02
C04
C05
C06
C07
C08
C09
C10
Cll
C12
C14
C18
C20
C22
C23
C24
C27
M01
M02
M03
M04
R01
R02
R04
R05
R07
Y01
Y04
324 1,620.98
7 481.96
1 9.61
1 4.92
5 46.57
1 2.50
6 109.!95
9 232.70
1 83.29
140 317,44
25 33.13
8 44.79
54 97.12
9 27~73
32 54.23
126 226.10
2 50.63
1 0.76
18 13.13
5 5.01
10 23.85
2 2.86
1 2.21
42 81.23
10 61.86
534 2,441.49
2 7.07
29 126.10
11 28.54
27 100.38
2 44.68
7,748 1,792.42
316 0.46
45 85.24
10 101.77
4,224 3,996.53
6 80.92
77 536.27
TOTAL LEVY
0.00
14,095.88
280.04
143.36
1,357.02
72.86
3,222.32
6,936.48
2,427.06
111,557.60
11,617.52
15,664.48
34,037.96
9,696.64
18,963-16
79,226.98
17,704.28
265.74
4,653.12
1,806.64
8,339.86
1,000.06
772.80
28,656.16
21,678.98
572,305.06
2,472.26
1,690.12
480.82
1,180.16
13,875-30
451,514.14
'13,812-34
1,966.98
437.12
566,266.22
18,864.08
125,492.40
13,871 12,976.43 $ 2,164,534.00
21-a
SERVICE LEVEL A - FISCAL YF_AR 1992/1993
The assessments for non-exempt parcels within the Service Level A are as follows:
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family
(includes Apartments, Condominiums,
Mol3ile Homes)
Residential Vacant
Agriculture
Non Residential (Improved)
Non Residential (Vacant)
4. 18 per unit
3. 14 per unit
8.36 per acre
2. 10 per acre
25.08 per acre
16. 72 per acre
LUC
999
A01
A02
A10
A12
A14
A19
A20
A60
C01
C02
C04
C05
C06
C07
C08
C09
C10
CI1
C12
C14
C18
C20
C22
C23
C24
C27
M01
M02
M03
M04
R01
R02
R04
R05
R07
Y01
Y04
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
Service Level A / City
PARCELS
324
7
1
1
5
1
6
9
1
140
25
8
54
9
32
126
2
1
18
5
10
2
1
42
10
534
2
29
11
27
2
7,748
316
45
10
4,224
6
77
13,871
SERVICES DISTRICT
Wide Arterial Service
EDU
0.00
241.'86
4.80
2.46
23.28
1.25
55.29
119.02
41.64
1,914~16
199.34
268.78
584.04
166.38
325.38
1,359.42
303i78
4.56
79.84
31.00
143.10
17.16
13.26
491.70
371.98
9,819.92
42.42
29.00
8.25
20.25
238.08
7,747.00
237.00
33.75
7.50
9,715.50
323.68
2,153.16
37,139.01
TOTAL LEVY
0.00
1,011.02
20.08
10.24'
97.10
5.20
231.12
495.12
174.08
7,964.50
829.30
1,122.48
2,429.88
692.48
1,353.90
5,655.40
1,263.72
18.96
332.14
128.96
596.00
71.40
55.16
2,045.50
1,551.18
40,879.02
176.86
120.68
34.32
84.24
995.18
32}284.16
986.52
140.50
31.22
40,567.74
1,346.50
8,974.14
154,776.00
22-a
FORMULA II- .~ervice Level B and C
Neither Service Level B nor Service Level C are citywide levy service levels.
Service Level B and Service Level C do not apportion their respective Service Level
Budget Totals upon all Single-Family Residential parcels.
Service Level B and Service Level C have separate, non-exempt parcel data bases
comprised of only those Single-Family parcels which are part of a recorded subdivision
which has, as required by conditions governing the subdivision development, installed
facilities to provide certain described amenities and services.
For these two Service Levels, the data base will consist of only Single-Family Residential
parcels with a Land Use Code of R01 and, of those parcels, only those contained within
specific recorded subdivisions. There will not be a need to equate to other land use
codes for these two Service Levels due to the direct nature of the benefit received.
Therefore, the formula for apportionment within Service Level B is only recorded
subdivisions with street lighting services. Service Level C is only recorded subdivisions
with TCSD maintenanced slope areas. The formula for apportionment within Service Level
C is defined into four (4) rates:
Rate C-1: Tract 22593
Rate C-2: Tracts 20130, 21340, 20879, 21561, 22208, 20881, 21764,
Rate C-3: Tracts 20643, 20644, 22203, 22204, 23128, 22715, 22716
Rate C-4: Tracts 18518, 20882, 21672, 21673, 21674, 21675, 21765
SERVICE LEVEL BUDGET TOTAL / TOTAL SFR PARCELS -- $ PER SFR PARCEL
23
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993, THE LEVY FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY (R01)
PARCEL AS IT APPLIES TO THE ABOVE SERVICE LEVEL FORMULA IS AS
FOLLOWS:
SERVICE LEVEL B - FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993
Single Family Residential
= $3o.ea
SERVICE LEVEL C - FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993
Rate C1: Single Family Residential = $ 50.00
Rate C2: Single Family Residential = $ 93.00
Rate C3: Single Family Residential = $120.00
Rate C4: Single Family Residential = $179.00
24
FORMULA Iil - Service Level D
Service LeVel D services will be provided only to detached Single-Family Residential
parcels. 'i'l~:ese parcels are identified by the County of Riverside Land Use Code RO1.
For purposes of this Service Level only, the use of detached is intended to exclude all
other single-family residential classifications such as condominiums, townhomes, patio
homes which could share a common wall and where the refuse collection process
resembles that provided to an apartment complex.
The intent of Service Level D is to levy a yearly recycling/refuse collection fee which is
easy to execute and administer for single-family residents. Other residential classifications
tend to require group refuse bins with various collection options which would dictate a
complicated administration..
With the uncomplicated service of one pick-up per detached single-family resident, it is
possible to calculate an annual fee. The ease of using the TCSD as the fee collection
vehicle results in a decrease in the service fee received by the property owner due to the
corresponding decrease of many administrative activities inherent with the old fee
collection process.
SERVICE LEVEL D - FISCAL YEAR 1992/1993
Single Family Residential $159.12
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual Fiscal Year 1992/1993 assessments, tabulated by Assessor Parcel
Number, as assigned by the County of Riverside Assessor's Office, are shown on an
Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Temecula and are also
contained within this Annual Levy Report by reference to Exhibit" B ".
26 "",
AFFIDAVIT FOR ANNUAL LEVY REPORT
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA
The undersigned respectively submits the enclosed Annual Levy Report and
Assessment Roll herein referenced as Exhibit" B ", as directed by the Board of Directors
of the Temecula
Dined:
By:
C mmunity Services District.
MUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed "Report', together with the Assessment Roll
thereto attached, was filed with me on the day of .1992.
Secretary to the Board
Temecula Community Services Districts
Temecula, California '
By:
June S. Greek
Secretary to the Board
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed "RepOrt", together with the Assessment Roll
thereto attached, was approved for levy by the Board of the TCSD, Temecula, California,
on the day of ,1992.
Secretary to the Board
Temecula Community Services Districts
Temecula, California
By:
June S. Greek
Secretary to the Board
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed "RepOrt", together with the Assessment Roll
thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor/Controller of the County of Riverside
on the day of ,1992L
Secretary to the Board
Temecula Community Services Districts
Temecula, California
By:
June S. Greek
Secretary to the Board
TEMECULA REDVELOPMENT
AGENCY AGENDA
ITEM
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD JUNE 9, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:35 PM.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks, Mu~oz
ABSENT:
0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and
Agency Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
AGENCY BU8INESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Moore to approve the minutes
of May 26, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Combinino Balance Sheet as of March 31. 1992 and the Statement of Revenues,
Exoenditures and Chanoes in Fund Balance for the Nine Months Ended March 31.1992
Director of Finance Mary Jane Henry presented the staff report.
It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Moore to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
2.2
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of March 31,1992 and
the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Revie,w of Redevelooment Ac~encv Conflict of Interest Code
City Clerk June S. Greek presented the staff report.
4~RDAMINM)60992 -1- 06/15/92
Temecula Red~eloprnent Agency Minutes June 9. 1992
It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Moore to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
3.1 Approve amendments to the Redevelopment Agency's Conflict of
Interest Code and Direct the City Clerk/Agency Secretary to forward the
amended code to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 92-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
The motion was unanimously carried.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Dixon reported the first meeting of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee
was held on Thursday, June 4th, where terms and officers were established. He stated a
report will be forthcoming.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by member Parks, seconded by Member Moore to adjourn at 8:40 PM. The
motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
J. Sal Mu~oz, Chairperson
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
4~J)AMIN~e0992 -2- _ 06/15/92
ITEM
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
June 23, 1992
SUBJECT:
Appropriation for Old Town Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members appropriate $50,000 from
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Fund Balance for the Old Town Specific Plan.
DISCUSSION: On March 24, 1992 the City Council awarded the contract
for the Old Town Specific Plan to Urban Design Studio and appropriated $30,000 in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Fiscal Year 1991-92
portion of the contract. Based upon the work completed to date an additional
appropriation of $50,000 will be required as of June 30, 1992, although the total
contract amount will not change.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total contract cost remains unchanged, only the timing
of payments between fiscal years will change.
dii!!
401
6A3/17.2?
ex(
June 23 , 1992
Temecula Community Services District
Board of Directors
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Director:
I would like to express my support for this year' s assessment
increase which will provide much needed programs and services to
our community. In particular, I believe the increase in the
community services and parks funds is a worthwhile investment and
necessary to provide a Teen Recreation Center, Temecula Senior
Citizens Center, new 28 . 6 acre park, and the expansion of the
CRC.
Furthermore, I commend the City and the TCSD for their foresight
and commitment in developing positive recreational alternatives
for our youth and the community.
Sincerely,
//51-11