Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
021301 CC Agenda
liance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this Kin comp ...... . nf th~ gitv Clerk (909~ 694-6444 Not ftcat on 48 hours prior to a meeting will / emneae~le~ep City ,o make reasonable arrangements ,o ensure accesslblhty ,o that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 [ ADA Title I~] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE FEBRUARY '13, 2001 - 7:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. R:~Agenda\021301 1 CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2001-03 Resolution: No. 2001-15 Mayor Jeff Comemhero Matthew Klm, pianist, accompanied by his teacher Ms. Suzanne Cloutier Pastor Ben Wikner of Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church Councilman Pratt Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Five-year Service Awards Certificates of Achievement to the Junior Olympic Award recipients PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. R:~Agenda\021301 2 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICETO THE PUBLIC Ail matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 28, 2000; 2.2 Approve the minutes of December 12, 2000; 2.3 Approve the minutes of December 19, 2000. Resolution Approvin,q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2000. R:~Agenda\021301 3 5 6 7 8 9 Property Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the City of Temecula Property Insurance Policy renewal with Chubb Insurance Company, Royal/Agricultural & Greenwich Insurance Companies, and Lloyd's of London for the period of February 26, 2001 through February 26, 2002 in the amount of $83,736.00. Approval of 2000-2001 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-0t ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET Reschedu n.q of March 13, 2001 City Council Meeting RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Direct the City Clerk to reschedule the regular City Council meeting of March 13, 2001 to March 6, 2001 and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements of the Government Code. Microsoft Software Licenses RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize the purchase of 180 licenses of Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional from ikon Office Solutions to the total amount of $27,151.28. Amendment No. 1 to the A.qreement for Consu ting Services between the City of Temecula and Sandra Massa-Lavitt RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the contract with Sandra Massa-Lavitt for consulting services for $25,000 for a total contract amount of $50,000. 10 2001 Workers' Compensation Coverage Annual Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Select State Compensation Insurance Fund as the City's new Empl°yee W°rkers' Compensation Insurance for Plan Year 2001. R:~Agenda\021301 4 11 Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Temecula and PELA/THE ELLIOT GROUP RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the contract with PELA/THE ELLIOT GROUP for landscape plan check and inspection consulting services in the amount of $74,000.00. 12 Parcel Map No. 29642 (located north of Nicolas Road and west of Winchester Road) 13 14 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29642 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 12.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for the agreement. Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for the installation of a traffic signal at Margarita Road and Stonewood Road - Project No. PW00-18 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the installation of a traffic signal at Margarita Road and Stonewood Road - Project No. PW00-18. Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Bids for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Proqram- Project No. PW01-03 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit bids for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program - Project No. PW01-03. 15 Award of Construction Contract for the Low-Flow Crossinq at Via Montezuma - Project No. PW99-15 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Award a contract for the Low-Flow Crossing at Via Montezuma - Project No. PW99- 15 to Terra-Cai Construction, Inc. for $404,587.70, contingent upon receiving resource agency permits and approved CEQA clearance, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract; 15.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $40,458.77 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 15.3 Transfer $130,000 of Capital Reserves from the Pavement Management System Project to the Low-Flow Crossing at Via Montezuma - Project No. PW99-15. R:~,genda\021301 5 16 Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. - Diaz Road Extension and Alignment Study- Project No. PW00-10 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve the agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide professional engineering services for the Alignment Study for the extension of Diaz Road to the City limits and a bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek - Project No. PW00-10 for an amount not to exceed amount of $167,101.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 16.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the contract or $16,710.10. 17 First Amendment to the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Temecula and Eastern Municipal Water District First Street Extension - Project No. PW95-08 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Temecula and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) for an amount equal to $405,686.21 and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1; 17.2 Approve an appropriation of $100,000.00 to cover the reimbursable costs from EMWD for their facilities associated with the bridge construction project; 17.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders with Riverside Construction Company for the additional amount of $100,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency for First Street Extension - Project No. PW95-08. 18 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 01-01 (Zoning Standards for Specific Plan No. 12 - Wolf Creek) RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 0t-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ZONING STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. t2, THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PA98-0481) R:~Agenda\021301 6 19 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 01-02 (Development Agreement - Wolf Creek) RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 0'1-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND S-P MURDY LLC" (PA 00-0029) RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:~Agenda\021301 7 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2001-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2001-03 Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state ,/our name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of January 23, 2001. 2 Approval 2000-2001 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET R:~Agenda\021301 8 3 Authorization to release a formal bid for the Rancho California Sports Park Culvert Modification Project RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Make a finding that the Rancho California Sports Park Culvert Modification Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the CEQA guidelines; 3.2 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the release of a formal public bid for the Rancho California Sports Park Culvert Modification Project. PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the Community Services District 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 the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4 Tract Map No. 29286 - Service Level B, Proposed Residential Street Lighting and Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance Rates and Charges RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON APRIL 6, 2001, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29286 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6, OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 4.2 Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots; 4.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. R:~Agenda\021301 9 RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING JOINT CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING 5 6 Any person may submit written comments to the City Council/Community Services District 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 courts, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. Proposed Annexation of the Vail Ranch Area and the Related Imposition of Taxes, Rates and Charges (Planning Application No. PA00-0021) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Conduct a public hearing on the annexation of the Vail Ranch area and carry out one (of record) the other of the following actions, depending on whether or not a significant number of written protests are received: 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-t INCLUDING THE ANNEXATION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE DETACHMENT OF THOSE AREAS FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143, AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL OF APPLICABLE TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, AND CHARGES OR 5.3 Direct staff to determine the value of written protests received from the property owners and/or registered voters in the annexation area and report its findings at a subsequent City Council meeting within 30 days of this hearing. TCSD Proposed Rates and Charqes for the Vail Ranch Annexation Area for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the Community Services District adopt a resolution entitled: R:~Agenda\021301 10 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES WITHIN THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-1 (VAIL RANCH) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 7 Extension of a Special Tax for Recreational and Human Services Pro.qrams and the Operation, Maintenance, and Servicinq of Public Parks and Recreational Facilities, Median Landscaping, and Arterial Street Lights, and Traffic Siqnals to the Vail Ranch Annexation Area RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 0t- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX TO FINANCE THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, RECREATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN THE TERRITORY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-t (VAIL RANCH) RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 27, 2001, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\021301 11 CALLTO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2001-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2001-01 Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of January 23, 2001. 2 Approval of 2000-2001 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-0'1 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET R:~Agenda\021301 12 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 27, 2001, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\021301 13 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL BUSINESS 20 Selection of. City Council Committee Assi,qnments RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as liaison to each of the City Commissions and Committees and to the Pechanga Tribal Council: · Community Services Commission · Old Town Local Review Board · Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee · Planning Commission · Public/Traffic Safety Commission · Pechanga Tribal Council Liaison 20.2 Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following external committees: · City of Murrieta Liaison (2 Members) · County General Plan Update Committee - RCIP · French Valley Airport Committee (2 Members) · League of California Congress - Voting Delegates (Member and Alternate) · Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Committee · Murrieta Creek Advisory Board (Member and Alternate) · National League of Cities Annual Congress - 2001 Voting Delegate (Member and Alternate) · Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency · Riverside County Transportation Commission (Member and Alternate) · Riverside Transit Agency Representative (Member and Alternate) · Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors · Temecula/Murrieta Transportation/Traffic Committee (2 Members) · Trails Master Plan Development Committee · WRCOG Representative · Senior Center Expansion Design Committee (Member and Alternate - Proposed Deletion) 20.3 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following Advisory Committees: · Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Committee · Economic Development/Old Town Steering Committee · Finance Committee · Joint City Council/Temecula Valley Unified School District Committee · Library Task Force · Old Town Temecula Community Theater Ad Hoc Committee/Theater Advisory Committee · Public Works/Facilities Committee R:~Agenda\021301 14 21 22 23 20.4 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following Council Subcommittees: · City's General Plan Update Committee - This subcommittee will be deleted upon formation of the General Plan Steering Committee. · Children's Museum Ad Hoc Subcommittee · Development Overlay Subcommittee - Proposed Deletion · Electrical Needs Ad Hoc Subcommittee · Hotel Conference Center Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee - Proposed Deletion · Lennar Project Subcommittee · Roripaugh Ranch Annexation Ad Hoc Subcommittee · SAF-T-NET Subcommittee (one Councilmember and one Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner - Proposed Deletion) · Sports ParkAd Hoc Subcommittee · Via Cordoba Subcommittee - Proposed Deletion · Wall of Honor Ad Hoc Subcommittee · Water Park Subcommittee · Wolf Creek Development Agreement Council Ad Hoc Committee - Proposed Deletion · Villages of Old Town Ad Hoc Committee - Proposed Addition City Council Meeting Adjournment Time (Requested by Councilman Stone) RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Provide direction to staff whether to amend Ordinance No. 95-07 regarding the time of adjournment for City Council meetings. Additional Police Officers - Stop Light Abuse Program (SLAP) RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Provide direction regarding the Stop Light Abuse Program. Electric Power Emergency Building Moratorium (Placed on the Agenda at the request of Councilman Pratt) RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Councilman Pratt has requested that this item be considered by the City Council. R:~Agenda\021301 15 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\021301 16 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 28, 2000 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and convened in a regular meeting at 7:02 P.M., on Tuesday, November 28, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Absent: Councilmember: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Amanda Madrid. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Steven Leinhos of New Community Lutheran Church. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Pratt. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. Diane Bainbridge, 29800 Camino del Sol, extended an invitation to the City Council, staff, and the community to attend and participate in a Temecula/Murrieta Candlelight Tribute Remembering our Children on Saturday, December 2, 2000, at 5:00 P.M., at the Promenade Mall, in the courtyard area. Advising that this tribute would be in honor and in remembrance of all the children that many families, in both communities, have lost in the last decade and beyond. Ms. Bainbridge suggested to those individuals who choose to attend to bring a Teddy Bear with a ribbon of a loved one's name on it, advising that these Bears will then be given to local hospitals, public/safety agencies and children's charities in both communities. Advising that he will be in attendance, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero welcomed the public to attend this special event. B. Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, representing Citizens First of Temecula Valley, commended Deputy City Manager Thornhill on his efforts associated with the Growth Management Plan. Because, in her opinion, the Plan is not being adhered to, commenting on Temecula Ridge Apartments and Wolf Creek and advising that these developments do not meet the elements of the Growth Management Plan, Ms. Anderson advised that an initiative (copies of which were presented to the City Clerk) is being petitioned in an effort to place it on the November 2001 ballot and in an effort to ensure implementation of the City's Growth Management Plan. In response to Ms. Anderson, Councilman Roberts noted that the City Council had not yet discussed/considered Wolf Creek. R:~Vlinutes\112800 1 C. Ms. Shannon Murdaugh, 43600 San Fermin, as President of the Three Lakes Foster Parent Association, addressed the Association's on-going financial needs and requested that the City Council consider them during funding deliberations in an effort for them to achieve their goal of a permanent location for the Association. D. Ms. Kathy Koslan, 31890 Via Tatalla, representing Body in Balance Massage Therapy, requested that the City Council review its current procedure to impose a $500 business establishment fee on massage business and a $200 yearly renewal fee, stating that, in her opinion, her business as well as many others in the City are legitimate business but are being isolated as it relates to the imposed fees. City Manager Nelson noted that staff would set up an appointment with Ms. Koslan. E. With delight, Mr. Bob Ritchie, 44773 Tehachapi Pass, thanked the City Council for its support and efforts with regard to the Vail Ranch Annexation. Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that the annexation should be finalized by July 1, 2001. For Councilman Naggar, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that a ribbon-cutting ceremony will be scheduled. F. Mr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camino Alba, addressed what he would view as the County's embarkment on urban sprawl and commented on the detrimental impacts of such action to the cities within the County. Mr. Wheeler requested that the City take a more proactive approach to ensure the interests of the City and its residents are protected, suggesting that the County be asked for an injunction against any further development approval in the French Valley and along Highway 79S until the Riverside County Integrated Plan has been completed and that no additional residential tracts be built until the necessary infrastructure is in place (of record) until there is assurance that such infrastructure will be built within a reasonable timeframe and that agreement must be reached between the Riverside County Integrated Plan and the City's Growth Management Plan. Noting that the City Council has requested the County to postpone any upzones until the completion of the Riverside County Integrated Plan, Councilman Naggar advised that he will requesting that the City Council address this matter in Closed Session. In response to the above-made comments, Mayor Stone advised that the City has chosen to proceed, with the County, in a diplomatic manner in an effort top ensure development along the City's periphery will be properly mitigated; that the City Council will take prompt and appropriate action to ensure mitigation of projects, if approved, and to apply remedies necessary to protect the best interests of all citizens. G. Mr. Jason Braeger, 33468 Hidden Hollow Drive, a San Diego University senior student, informed the City Council of his attendance in order to obtain some first-hand experience as to the procedures of a City Council meeting. H. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena Street, praised the City in its archaeological efforts. R:~inutes\112800 2 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Commenting on the good attendance at a recent Waterpark Workshop, Councilman Naggar advised that he would keep the City Council and public apprised of the progress and noted that a Trails Master Plan meeting has been scheduled for Monday, December 4, 2000, at City Hall and welcomed public participation. B. Councilman Councilman Pratt commended those involved on the Safety Expo at Chaparral High School. C. Although the completion of the Overland Overcrossing provided numerous benefits, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that it as well placed additional traffic on Margarita Road, noting some relief may be attained by the future completion of Butterfield Stage Road. As an interim measure, Mr. Comerchero had identified five streets that access Margarita Road on the east side and, thereby, making it very difficult to make a left-hand turn in light of the increased traffic; noted that for each of those five streets a painted median is present; suggested to explore the possibility of restriping the median area in order to provide a merge lane. Mr. Comerchero suggested that the matter be explored for feasibility by Public Works Director Hughes prior to it being forwarded to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission. D. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero informed the public that the City's Annual Christmas Parade is this Friday, December 1, 2000. E. Advising that the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) receives substantial funding from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in order to alternative fuel projects, advising that RTA will receive $2.5 million to retrofit 57 buses to alternative fuel transit buses rather than diesel buses. F. Having visited Germany to receive an orientation on the magnetic-levitation train, Councilman Roberts noted that he viewed this train as the next generation of high-speed rail. Mr. Roberts apprised the Council and the public that Southern California is one of seven area in the United States to attempt its efforts on obtaining a $950 million Federal grant which would be utilized to put such a train into operation. Mr. Roberts proceeded with a description of the first proposed from Los Angeles Airport to March Airforoe Base. G. Commending the Police Department on its efforts associated with Enforce Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula (ERACIT), Mayor Stone advised that five people were apprehended, last week, for driving under the influence. H. Commenting on the number of e-mails he had received with regard to a freeway plan traveling through Wolf Valley and Rainbow Canyon communities, Mayor Stone advised that he has consulted with a Caltrans representative and noted that no freeway will be constructed on the south side of the City. Confirming Mayor Stone's comment, Councilman Roberts advised that as part of the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) various freeway options were explored but that the environmentalist oppose the option of Wolf Valley/Rainbow Canyon and clarified that CETAP is not proceeding with this option. I. Mayor Stone informed the City Council and community that a youngster in the City by the name of Nicolas Flint has been stricken with cancer, advising that he is hospitalized at St. Joseph's Hospital; that a fundraiser for Nicolas has been scheduled for December 6, 2000, at Stadium Pizza, in an effort to assist the family with the surmounting medical bills. R:~linutes\112800 3 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 10, 2000. (Councilman Naggar voted in opposition to the approval of the minutes.) 3 Resolution approvin.q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Liability Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the City of Temecula Liability Insurance Policy Renewal with Insurance Company of the West in the amount of $113,170 for general liability and automobile physical damage insurance for the period of December 1, 2000 through December 1, 2001. 5 First Amendment to the ARreement with Melad and Associates RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve a First Amendment to the agreement with Melad and Associates in the amount of $40,000; 5.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $4,000.00. R:~vlinutes\112800 4 6 Public Works Maintenance Agreements RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the minor maintenance and construction agreements with Monteleone Contractors, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $100,000, with Walter K. Becker (dba Becker Engineering) in an amount not to exceed $100,000, and with Rene's Commercial Management in an amount not to exceed $100,000. 7 Purchase of a Portable, Self-Contained Vacuum Catch Basin Cleaner for the Public Works 8 Maintenance Division RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the purchase of a portable, self-contained vacuum catch basin cleaner in the amount of $48,847.43 from Ditch Witch of Southern California. Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Temecula's Electric Light Parade on December 1, 2000, and dele.qate authority to issue Special Events/Street Closures Permit to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES FOR JEFFERSON AVENUE AND ABUTTING STREETS FROM DEL RIO ROAD TO OVERLAND AVENUE FOR TEMECULA'S ELECTRIC LIGHT PARADE ON DECEMBER '1, 2000, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES 9 Trees for the Millennium Grant Application for FY 2000-2001 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Receive and file the report regarding the City's Trees for the Millennium Grant Application for the planting of street trees within the Winchester Creek Development and authorize the Director of Public Works to forward said application to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; R:\Minutes\112800 5 9.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM AS PROVIDED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA TREES FOR THE MILLENNIUM INITIATIVE FUNDED THROUGH THE FOREST RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR THE WINCHESTER CREEK DEVELOPMENT 10 Second Amendment to agreement with Davidson + Allen Architects City Maintenance Facility Modifications - Phase III - Project No. PW00-16 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the second amendment to the Consultant Services Agr'eement between the City and Davidson + Allen Architects, increasing the contract amount by $9,549.02. 11 Tract Map No. 29286 - Finding of Conformance with its original approval (located on the southeast corner of Date Street and Marqarita Road) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29286 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 11.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 11.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. 12 Benefit Allotment Change - Effective January 1, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve an increase of the City of Temecula employee benefit monthly allotment from $496 to $650, effective January 1, 2001. This increase is intended to keep the Temecula's benefit package competitive and to offset the ever-rising costs of medical, dental, and vision plan inflation. 13 Calle Medusa - Results of Residential Survey RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the survey results received from residents living on or near Calle Medusa; abandon the concept of closing this roadway to through traffic; and continue ongoing enforcement of existing traffic laws in this area. (Item No. 13 was pulled for separate discussion; see page 7.) R:\Minutes\112800 6 14 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2000-13 - Rezonin.q approximately 32.6 acres of property on the south side of State Route 79 (South) east of Jedediah Smith Road; Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment removin.q the western portion of Via Rio Temecula from the General Plan Circulation Element; and approve a Settlement and Release Aqreement between the City and Old Vail Partners RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2000-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-010-006 AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0261) 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REMOVING THE WESTERN PORTION OF VIA RIO TEMECULA FROM THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0371) With regard to Item No. 14, City Attorney Thorson advised that a revised Settlement Agreement, reflecting minor changes, has been distributed to the City Councilmembers and that the City Council's action include the approval of the Settlement Agreement. No opposition was noted by the City Councilmembers. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. I - 12 and 14 (l[em No. 13 was pulled for separate discussion. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who voted no with regard to Item No. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION 13 Calle Medusa - Results of Residential Survey RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the survey results received from residents living on or near Calle Medusa; abandon the concept of closing this roadway to through traffic; and continue ongoing enforcement of existing traffic laws in this area. R:~Vlinutes\112800 7 Public Works Director Hughes reviewed the survey and its results (as per written material), recapitulating that 607 surveys were mailed; that 362 responses were received; that of those received, 80 were in favor of the road closure; that of those received, 277 were not in support of the road closure. For Mayor Stone, Mr. Hughes advised that the Meadows Parkway will be opened in the near future and that opening may further relieve some traffic as well as the future opening of Butterfield Stage Road. Living in the area of discussion, Councilman Pratt noted that a combination of the stop signs and increased enforcement has created a reduction in speed. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 8;15 P.M., Mayor Stone convened as the Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency and reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:22 P.M. COUNCIL BUSINESS 15 Temecula Ridge Reconsideration RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Reconsider previous denial of the Temecula Ridge project. For Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson clarified that if the City Council were willing to reconsider thi project, it must be agendized for a future meeting for voting and if the City Council were desirous to not reconsider the proposed changes, a resolution would be drafted for denial along with its supported findings and it would be forward k to the next City Council meeting for final action. Planning Director Ubnoske presented the staff report (as per agenda material), reviewing the proposed changes to the site plans, as follows: · Reduction in the number of units from 247 to 220, noting that this number of units would yield the same number of trips as a single-family project constructed at the lowest end of the permitted density range · Removal of the third floor from all Type I buildings, which will result in a reduction of 32 two-bedroom, two bathroom units · Addition of 6 three-bedroom, two-story units · Reduction in size of the recreation center to accommodate the tot lot at the new location · Lowering of the elevation on the south side by 4' to reduce visual impacts. Ms. Ubnoske noted that developer will retain the 43% of open space; advised that the School District has committed to providing an additional bus which will service the children from the proposed project as well as those children from two other apartment complexes, who are currently being picked up at the Duck Pond. Councilman Roberts noted that he was under the impression that the site elevation was to be reduced by 5'. R:~Minutes\112800 8 City Attorney Thorson advised that he had received a letter this evening from Mr. B. Dwight Warden, an attorney, who is presenting a coalition of homeowners opposed to the Temecula Ridge project. Mr. Thorson relayed Mr. Warden's opinion that the City Council has no legal authority to reconsider a decision which has already been made. Mr. Thorson advised that he does not agree with Mr. Warden's position, noting that the City Council has the authority to consider whether it wants to examine the modifications made to the project, to schedule the resolution for denial and to make the findings, or to notice for a public headng to consider these modifications to the project. City Attorney Thorson noted that Mr. Warden is making an assumption that a final decision was made on October 10, 2000, to deny the project, advising that his position is that the action the City Council took was to direct the City Attorney to prepare the resolution to deny and to prepare the findings, advising that under California Law and, specifically, a case Topan,qa Association vs. the County of Los An,qeles, a project may not be denied or approved without making those findings and that until those findings are made, the decision is not final. Councilman Naggar relayed that he as well, as, in his opinion, reflected in the minutes, was under the impression that the City Council had denied the project. Referencing the minutes, City Attorney Thorson clarified that the minutes reflect a motion by Councilman Pratt to deny the project and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the resolution containing the findings of denial. Having consulted with various homeowners associations and individuals as well as the Temecula Unified School District, Mr. A. G. Kading, applicant, reiterated, as per Planning Director Ubn0ske's comments, the proposed changes, noting the following: · That 8 of the 16 three-story structures were reduced to two-story structures · That the foundation in the southeast corner was lowered by 5' · That an easement, along the southern boundary of the property, will be dedicated for the trails system Clarifying a previously prepared sound report, as had been requested by Planning Department staff, Mr. Kading noted that the requirement of fixed glass on windows is an inaccurate statement; that the project will require no dampening of any sound; that all windows on this project will be able to be opened; that the fixed glass issue came at the request of staff for the patio areas - to construct a glass wall to serve as an element of protection for those on the balconies. With the proposed improvements to Moraga Drive and connection to Via Los Colinas, Mr. Kading noted that the School District will be able to provide bus transportation for the school children. In light of the substantial changes, Mr. Kading noted that the changes warrant a reconsideration of the project. In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Kading apprised the City Council with which homeowners associations he had met and with those, although to no avail, he attempted to meet with. Mr. Naggar advised that the School District is potentially considering charging for bus transportation service. Mr. Kading informed Mr. Naggar that he has not made any progress with regard to obtaining an easement located on the Oder property so that the children could access school by way of this easement. Echoing Mr. Kading's comments, Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 41530 Enterprise Circle South, requested reconsideration of this project; advised that the applicant would be willing to meet with any interested individuals or groups; and readdressed the specifics of the motion of October 10, 2000, concurring that a resolution of denial is not final until the supporting findings have as well been adopted. R:~linutes\112800 9 Viewing it imperative that the City Council readdress its decision of October 10, 2000, Mr. Dennis Frank, 37820 Spring Valley Road, relayed his support of the project; stated that to put a halt on housing would as well close the opportunities for job creation/expansion; and noted that Temecula Ridge would address a City housing need. Mrs. Helen Oder, 29923 Mira Loma Drive, thanked the City Council for its efforts with regard to this project; relayed his support of the project; and viewed the proposed project as a quality project. Having been in the apartment business for many years, Mr. Bob Oder, 29923, Mira Loma Drive, spoke in support of this project. In response to Mayor Stone, relayed his open-mindedness to possibly dedicating a portion of his property for the purpose of an easement. By way of overheads, Mr. Robert Oder, 30221 Mira Loma, clarified the location of his family's property (to the south of the applicant's property); relayed his support of the project; supported the reconsideration of it; and echoed his father's comments that the family would remain open about the consideration of an easement dedication. Because of liability issues, Mr. Kading informed the City Councilmembers that the School District had expressed some concern with such a pathway and preferred bus transportation. In response to Councilman Naggar's request, Mayor Stone requested that if this matter were continued, that a School District representative be present at the next City Council meeting. Concurring with City Attorney Thorson's opinion that the City Council's decision to deny the project would not be final until the City Council approves the findings, Ms. Tamar Stein, Esq., 2049 Century Park East, representing the Oder Family, noted that the proposed project has been redesigned and concerns have been addressed and, therefore, would encourage the City Council to reconsider the project. Ms. Stein stated that her clients are open to discussing the possible dedication of an easement but that such discussion should not be considered under the approval of the proposed project. Mr. Paul Runkle, 41877 Enterprise Circle North, viewed the proposed project as an ideal in-fill project which would be compatible with existing zoning and which would be surrounded almost on all four sides by other commercial properties; commented on the need for all types of housing throughout the City; noted that the proposed project would provide more value to the City than problems; that most such projects average at 20 uhits per acre; and that he has never seen a developer willing to share a project's recreational benefits; that the developer has offered affordable housing although he was not requested; and that the amount of landscaping proposed is not typical of such projects. Advising that he is neither for nor against the project, Mr. Carl Ross, 43886 Butternut Drive, stated that the proposed issues are about density and not whether to build or not to build an apartment complex. By way of a chart from the General Plan, Mr. Ross addressed units per acre, expressing concern with constructing projects at maximum density, and stated that the proposed project does meet the requirements of the General Plan/Growth Management Plan. In response to Mr. Ross, Mayor Stone addressed a portion of the Growth Management Plan which permits additional density in lieu of community amenities, stating that the proposed project will provide the following: · 100% Quimby fees · road improvements · swimming pool offered to local swim clubs R:\Minutes\112800 10 · higher-end product to attract a higher-end base Mr. Stone stated that the proposed project will be a benefit those citizens currently renting and those wanting to rent within a quality complex and those young families desirous of owning in the future but unable to meet the down payment requirements at this time; and, therefore, the project would serve as a lay station. Mr. Stone noted that this project would be one of the lowest density apartment complexes in the City. Addressing Mr. Ross' concern with regard to density, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that this project would create fewer average daily trips on the City's infrastructure than would a single-family project at 7 units per acre. Commenting on the General Plan chart referenced by Mr. Ross, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that all traffic figures were computed at the higher ends of the density range and that since incorporation, the City has reduced its density by approximately 8 to 10% overall. In response to Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that 65% of the City's traffic problems are external problems; that if the City were to build out to its General Plan, the density impacts could be mitigated but because 65% of those impacts are external, the City cannot control those problems related to the City of Murrieta, the County, etc. Questioning the accuracy of the figures with regard to average daily trips generated by a single- family project and a multi-family project, Councilman Naggar noted that building at maximum density would create gridlock. For Mayor Pre Tem Comerchero, Public Works Director Hughes further commented on the most recognized source in determining trip generations (ITE Manual), advising that a multi-family unit would produce, at an average, 6 to 8 daily trips per unit and that a single-family unit would produce, at an average, 10 to 12 trips per unit. Mr. Hughes advised that these trip generation studies are prepared by registered engineers who are responsible for providing accurate and professional information. Councilman Naggar stated that, in his opinion, there are certain elements which cannot be factored into a traffic study (turn movements and opening of a shopping center). In response to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's comment with regard to traffic figures computed at the higher end of the density range, Mayor Stone noted that this project at '10.5 units per acre would actually create less traffic impact than allowed by the General Plan. As President of the Alta Vista Community Association, Mr. Burlie Cole, 42567 Remora Street, noted that because of violations of Chapters/Goals/Policies of the General Plan, as reviewed at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, the project was denied. He advised that the developer has not contacted him to address concerns and that access to the schools from the subject site would require children to trespass over private property. Mr. David Micheal, 30300 Churchill Court, advised that at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, individuals as well as groups spoke in opposition to the proposed project and petitions were submitted. Mr. Micheal addressed concerns with regard to property value and stated that, to date, apartment complexes have been built in high-density zones. Referencing the Growth Management Plan, Mr. Micheal addressed City Council's direction to the Planning Commission to consider projects at the lowest density and to take in consideration any amenities. R:\Minutes\112800 11 Mr. Gary Watts, 42163 Rubicon Drive, stated that the City Council already voted on the denial of this project and that local groups are tired of the growth and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to uphold the denial of the project. For Mr. Watts, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified and confirmed by City Attorney Thorson that, as per the City's General Plan, multi-family housing is permitted in medium- density zones and briefly referenced other cities which permit multi-family housing in medium-density zones. Providing further clarification as to permissible density, City Attorney Thorson referenced Table 17.06.030 of the Zoning Code (permitted uses by zone), noting that multi-family is a permitted use in both medium- and high-density zones. Advising that some confusion may be created as a result of a the list reflected in Section 17.06.020 which provides a definition of medium density residential and high density residential, noting that on this list, apartment complexes are reflected under high density but that this is not an exhaustive list of permitted uses and that the list reflected in the Zoning Code is. Understanding that the General Plan supersedes the Development Code, Councilman Naggar noted that the Development Code does not list apartment complexes in the medium-density zone and, therefore, requested that the Development Code be amended to ensure accordance with the General Plan. In light of adjacent land use compatibility issues, Mr. Naggar stated that the City has evolved without the construction of apartment complexes in medium-density zones and, therefore, questioned why that should change now. Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that the City's General Plan is the blueprint for development - one which the developer relies upon - and that the General Plan is the overriding issue as it relates to dealing with project density. Although he would view the proposed project as a quality project, Mr. David Boucher, 42797 Twilight Court, encouraged the City Council to uphold its initial denial of the project, commenting on the close proximity of single-family residences. In response to Mr. Boucher, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero noted that statistical information reflects that the City's average number of residents per unit is 3.3 and that according to information obtained from the Solana and Tuscany projects, those complexes are experiencing an average of 1.9 residents per unit, indicating a lower density than the City's overall density. Although he is in general support of apartment development and affordable housing throughout the City, Mr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camina Alba, Murrieta, noted that the proposed project location is not the right location. Mr. Wheeler encouraged the City to construct some high- density development offset by clustering to develop open space and give economic basis in making public transportation a viable alternative. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilman Pratt advised that the City of Temecula has 6.25 more registered vehicles per citizen than Manhattan Island which would be equivalent to 100,000 residents with no interurban public transportation; stated that population and traffic is not always directly proportional to density; and noted that the PublicFFra Safety Commission will be addressing his Traffic Plan. In light of Councilman Pratt's active efforts to revert the autoculture and promote public transportation, Mayor Stone advised that staff has tried to educate the City Council that density nodes are key components to making public transportation successful Mr. Stone stated that the proposed project would be located in the core of the City and would be surrounded by denser apartment complexes and commercial uses, noting that the proposed project would be R:Wlinutes\112800 12 at almost two units per acre less than was what the traffic calculations were based on. In closing, Mr. Stone noted that the project will as well provide a safer traveling route for the school children. Concurring that the proposed project is a well-designed project, Councilman Pratt reiterated his concern with regard to traffic and the external impacts on the City and stated that the City must resolve its own issues. For Councilman Naggar, Mayor Stone noted that it is the private sector that drives the market in accordance with the City's General Plan, noting that, in the past, there has not been a market for apartment complexes but that the market is changing. Noting that Mr. Kading has followed and adhered to the City's rules, ordinances, and Generel Plan, Mayor Stone spoke in support of the project, commenting on the need for such housing. Clarifying the term clustering, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchere noted that individuals associate clustering with high density; that SMART Growth and new urbanism is not about high density; and that clustering creates new opportunities and works as follows: if a developer had three acres to develop and density permitted four units per acre (total of 12 units), the developer may choose to build all 12 units on one acre and then be required to retain the other two acres as open space or he may develop each acre at 4 units per acre. Concurring with the SMART Growth concept, Councilman Roberts confirmed that clustering does not change the overall, permitted density but that it does permit other methods of transportation other than the car. With regard to the proposed project, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero clarified that he had initially voted against the project at 246 units and the proposed three-story structures in the hopes that the City Council would permit the developer to present the project in a different form. Because of the number of public meetings with regard to this project and the amount of public input, Mr. Comerchero noted that the project is being presented, at this point in time, in a different form. Commenting on the need for such housing in order to accommodate employee opportunities, Mr. Comerchere noted that the Planning Department itself experienced the difficulty of hiring someone at a certain time because of the inability of that person being able to find housing. Although the economic feasibility of a project should not be his concern, Mr. Comerchero noted that if this project were denied, the developer has an option and a right to construct a Iow- moderate high density project with a 50% State bonus. Advising that the City Council cannot expect each and every resident to attend a City Council meeting to express his/her opinions/concerns regarding projects, Mr. Comerchero noted that this is the responsibility of the elected Councilmembers. In closing, Mr. Comerchero noted that the City must develop as a balanced community, one which will require multi-family housing; that the preposed project is a quality project; and that the noted concerns have been addressed. if this matter were continued, Councilman Roberts requested that Mr. Kading outreach to the homeowners association and in an effort to explain the project and address concerns. Summarizing the proposed changes to the project, Mr. Roberts noted the following: · 100% Quimby fees, noting the requirement would be 50% · easement for a trail along the south portion of the subject site · offering the removed dirt to the City at no charge which would be used for the Sports Park R:~vlinutes\112800 13 · windows closest to Rancho California Road will be open windows and not fixed windows · grading will not restrict view shed and privacy of neighboring properties · three-story structures at high elevation point reduced to two-story structures and to lower the elevation an additional 5' · reduced density from 246 units to 220 · amenities - would not view the pool as an amenity but would view the busing as an amenity because of the children it will service from two other complexes · school district's decision to charge for busing has not been finalized · noise barriers to the single-family homes - closest home will be 175' away from the apartment complex with a green belt separating the two In closing, presented structures if this were continued, Councilman Roberts requested that a revised rendering be to the City Council to reflect the modification of the three-story structures to two-story and requested assurance that a mature landscaping plan. Viewing the construction of apartments not an issue and advising that the City will as well be building true affordable housing in the Redevelopment aroa, Councilman Naggar stated that the issue with regard to this project is density. As per the Growth Management Plan, Mr. Naggar noted that on-site amenities are not a criteria to increase density, noting that minimum density may be offset by community amenities. Commenting on the threat of a Iow-income project being constructed at this particular site if the proposed project were not approved, Mr. Naggar advised that the developer has a right, under State law, for density bonus but it comes under the same constraints as any other development and must mitigate traffic and land constraints and all other constraints within the General Plan. Viewing this process as an impact on the public, Mr. Naggar noted that it is difficult for many residents to attend these number of meetings and, therefore, the public sentiment is that the City Councilmembers proceed with the responsibility with which they were elected. Mr. Naggar advised that he has requested the developer to meet with the neighboring homeowner associations; that the City Council voted 4 to 1 to deny the project; and that he will not support a continuance. Commending the developer on his efforts to work with the School District, Mr. Naggar stated that he would view busing as an amenity as well as the expansion of Moraga Drive but that the amount of landscaping being proposed should not be viewed as an amenity because the amount of slopes on the site requires that amount of landscaping. In closing, Mr. Naggar advised that he may approve a project over 150 units but not one at 220 units. Disagreeing with Councilman Naggar, Mayor Stone relayed his support of on-site amenities as proportion to density; viewed the General Plan as a living document which reflects quality architectural standards and one which exceeds those of most cities; stated that the proposed project is an in-fill project surrounded by like projects with higher density and more traffic volumes; that apartments are permitted in the medium-density zone according to the General Plan. At the last City Council meeting, Mr. Stone advised that he had reviewed the proposed findings of denial and explained as to how, in his opinion, they were inaccurate and would not stand up in the court of law; that if appropriate findings were not made to deny a project, the developer has options - one being to sue the City for inverse condemnation, advising that he never solely based his decision of approval on this option. Reviewing the location of the site, amenities, reduced trip generation, Quimby fees, road improvements, landscaping, school route, Mayor Stone relayed that for those reasons, he supported the project. In closing, Mr. Stone requested that mature landscaping be provided at the top of the ridge, closest to the adjacent home, and noted that all the input received for and against this project has created a better project for the City. R:\Minutes\112800 14 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to reconsider this matter at a public hearing on December 12, 2000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and roll call vote reflected approval as follows: AYES: Comerchero, Pratt, Roberts, Stone NOES: Naggar 16 Consideration of Emer,qency Traffic Circulation Plan (ETCP) (Placed on the agenda by Councilman Pratt) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Consider steps as recommended by Councilmember Pratt in his letters of October 10, 2000 (ETCP Plan) and November 6, 2000. Councilman Pratt provided background history as to his experience with traffic and by way of overheads, proceeded with an overview of his Traffic Circulation Plan (as per written material of record) and requested that the Plan be forwarded to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission for review. In response to Mr. Pratt, Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner Connerton noted that several of Mr. Pratt's issues have been addressed by the Commission and will be forthcoming in a traffic report. City Manager Nelson noted that the Traffic Circulation Plan will be continued to the City Council meeting of January 9, 2001. Concurring with some of Councilman Pratt's ideas, Mr. Robert Wheeler recommended the scheduling of a brainstorming workshop to address traffic with economic development. Briefly addressing external and internal traffic problems, Mr. Wheeler encouraged the tourism industry and suggested the placement of a tram way in the Murrieta Creek corridor from the confluence to Lake EIsinore, noting that by doing so, tourism would increase but in a non-polluting way and would as well solve internal traffic problems. Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, concurred with Mr. Wheeler's suggestion of a workshop and expressed concern with the construction of a drive-through Starbucks in a Village concept, noting that such construction would contradict the purpose of the Village concept and, therefore, encouraged the changing of the autoculture and noted that such change must start at school level. Mayor Stone noted that Councilman Pratt's report would be filed and that the matter would be continued to the January 9, 2001, City Council meeting. 17 Discussion of the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Alternatives Development Document RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt Alternative No. 1 as the preferred alternative and direct the City Clerk to forward the minute order stating the Council's decision to the Western Riverside Council of Governments prior to December 4, 2000. R:~vlinutes\112800 15 Although concurring with staff's recommendation, Councilman Naggar advised that the City of Murrieta has expressed some concerns with the Plan; that their concerns are valid; and that he would encourage a Plan that would work for them as well as for the City of Temecula. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that the ultimate determination of whether or not a Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan were viable would be made by the resource agencies. Councilman Naggar noted that he would keep the City Council and the public apprised of the progress. Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero questioned whether or not consideration has been given by the City as to whether to adopt an interim fee such as the County has proposed. In light of the time, Mr. Comerchero requested that discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing an interim fee be agendized to a subsequent meeting. Councilman Naggar advised that the BIA would be in support of the interim fee. Mr. Robert VVheeler informed the City Council and the public that the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan process has been paralleled by a scientific review panel, consisting of biologists which are not involved in the political picture; advised that this review panel is not in support of Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and stated that they could minimally support Alternative No. 1; and noted that final approval is being discussed by the Board of Supervisors at their December 19, 2000, meeting. MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to concur with the staff recommendation to adopt Alternative No. 1. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no actions to report and that the real property negotiations w be forwarded to the City Council in public session for final approval. R:\Minutes\112800 16 ADJOURNMENT At 11:28 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\112800 17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 12, 2000 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and convened in a regular meeting at 7:01 P.M., on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Absent: Councilmember: None. PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Jordan Bellino. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Youth Pastor Scott Treadway of Rancho Community Chumh. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Roberts. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation on future traffic projections for Interstate 15 by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Caltrans At the request of Councilman Naggar, Assistant to the City Manager Yates advised that representatives from SCAG and Caltrans were present to provide an overview of future traffic projections along Interstate 15 as it parallels the City of Temecula. By way of overheads, Mr. Arnold San Miguel from SCAG advised that SCAG, as a metropolitan planning organization, is required to prepare a 20-year transportation plan every three years as well as a regional transportation improvement program which is a three- to seven-year program which provides specific elements of a Highway/Transit project, noting that a transportation plan has been drafted but has not yet been approved. Mr. San Miguel reviewed SCAG's role in the planning process as it relates to growth on Interstate 15. Councilman Roberts reiterated that the Regional Transportation Improvement Program is just that a regional plan - one which does not solely reflect the City of Temecula. Advising that her responsibilities pertain to forecasting of Caltrans and intergovernmental review (CEQA review), Ms. Linda Grimes, representing Caltrans, addressed the following: · Level of service - years 2000 - 2020 · High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes · Demand per hour · State Capital Improvement Program - sources and mechanisms with which to approve infrastructure · Proposed and current condition of Interstate 15 R:\Minutes\121200 1 · Ridesharing Program - mass transit - need for park and ride lots · Highway 91 - level of service F1 during peak hours (1 to 2 hours congestion) · Toll lanes (Highway 91) under franchise -toll booth In light of past Caltrans funding, Mayor Stone expressed concern with Caltrans actually being able to meet the traffic demand and would foresee a level of service E and F sooner than actually predicted. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero encouraged that consideration be given to the distribution of Federal Highway Funding, noting that the largest percentage of those funds are distributed toward highway projects and a small percentage is distributed toward public transit. By way of exhibits, Mr. Saied Raza, representing Caltrans, reviewed recently completed Caltrans projects on Interstate 15 relative to the City of Temecula and advised that current condition demand is less than capacity because service of level, through the City of Temecula, is C and continued success of that service level will depend on funding. Councilman Naggar requested that staff identify a list of prioritized projects necessary to keep traffic flowing on Interstate 15 to ensure Interstate 15 will not turn into a Highway 91. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Because she has received no information from the City with regard to her relocation/location of her new fence, Ms Juliet-Anne:Boysen, 44060 Margarita Road, apologized for having to do so but informed the City Councilmembers that she has installed her new fence. In response to Mayor Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes advised that, as had been requested at the last City Council meeting, a surveyor had been ordered and was to survey her property this Friday or Monday; that City staff does not include a surveyor; that all outside surveying activities are completed by outside services/outside contracts; and that staff contact with Ms. Boysen has been through her attorney. Mayor Stone noted that staff should be responsive to the citizens and if delays occur, that the individual should be apprised by staff. Director of Public Works Hughes stated that he has always been available to Ms. · Boysen and that he, personally, has not been contacted by her either. B. Ms. Pamela Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, suggested that the vacant Costco location be considered for alternative uses such as a site to hold University classes, an ice skating rink, a YMCA facility, etc. With both Mayor Stone and Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero responding to Ms. Miod, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that the Costco building has recently been sold and encouraged Ms. Miod to contact the new owners to relay her suggestions. City Manager Nelson stated that staff would provide the appropriate contact for the Costco building to Ms. Miod. R:~,linutes\121200 2 C. As owner of the commercial shopping center at Highway 79 and Bedford Court, Mr. David Phares, 27710 Jefferson Avenue, stated that although the widening of Highway 79 is a Caltrans widening project, he discussed the concerns of his tenants as well as his with regard to an accident that occurred in November which rendered the signal at Bedford Court inactive, Caltrans has since taken a position to not activate the signal until after the widening project has been completed. Therefore, Mr. Phares requested City Council assistance in the resolution of this matter with Caltrans, noting that access from Highway 79 to the Center is right turn in and exit is right turn out which tends to create an inconvenience to the patrons as well as tenants. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Having attended the Student of the Month ceremony, Councilman Pratt commended Ms. Sally Myers on a job well done and informed the City Council that Ms. Myers has requested that this event be publicized on television. B. Commending City Clerk Jones on an outstanding soloist performance, Councilman Pratt advised that he had attended the Messiah at the local Mormon Church. C. Advising that it has been one year since he has requested the City Council to allow a period of review of City residential growth policies, Councilman Pratt commented on certain citizens' continued opposition to residential density and its impacts on traffic congestion, noting that he shares this opposition and is of the opinion that the City Council and staff has not recognized, with regard to this issue, the desires of the citizens. D. Councilman Naggar informed the City Council and the public that Mr. Ed Elder's wife has had heart surgery and wished her well. E. Having attended the National League of Cities/Congress of Cities meeting in Boston, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that the National League has as well identified for its 2001 workplan SMART Growth and controlling urban sprawl as a number one priority. F. Mayor Stone informed the public that Consent Calendar Item No. 7 (Agreement for Use of Flood Control Property) will be pulled off calendar and that Council Business Item No. 12 will be considered after Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR I Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 17, 2000. R:~¥1inutes\121200 3 3 Resolution approvin.q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2000. 5 Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the three months ended September 3O, 2000. 8 Contract Inspection Services for Building and Safety RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve a First Amendment to an Agreement for Consultant Services with P & D Consultants in an amount of $108,000 to provide supplemental building inspection services to the Building and Safety Department; 6.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $10,800. 7 Agreement for Use of Flood Control Property RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFWCD) for use of approximately 33.5 acres of property located adjacent to Jefferson Avenue. (This item was continued off calendar.) 8 Parcel Map No. 29895 (located south of Dendy Parkway, east of Winchester Road, and north of Remington Avenue) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29895 in conformance with the conditions of approval; R:\Minutes\121200 4 8.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 8.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond as security for the agreements. 9 Consideration of Amendment to the Boys and Gids Club Loan RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve an amendment to the loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, Inc. that would provide for funding of approved programs in lieu of cash loan payments. 10 Emergency Managers Assistance (EMA) Grant Receipt RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Consider appropriating $11,505.99 to purchase emergency management communication equipment. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 6 and 8 - 10 (Item No. 7 was pulled off calendar). The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At this time, Mayor Stone advised that Council Business (Item No. 12) will be discussed at this time. COUNCIL BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSED OUT OF ORDER 12 Community Services Commission Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Appoint one applicant to an unexpired term through October 10, 2001 and two applicants for three-year terms through October 10, 2003 to serve on the Community Services Commission. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to reappoint Mr. Tom Edward to a full three-year term, serving through October 10, 2003. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. In response to Councilman Naggar's support of Mr. Herrera, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that the subcommittee had a difficult time in making its recommendation because of the number of qualified candidates. Having personally interviewed just about every candidate, Mr. Comerchero as well encouraged Mr. Herrera to continue to apply and noted that some of the other candidates merely have been City residents for a longer period of time and, therefore, have had a longer opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the City. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to appoint Ms. Janet Yorke to a full three-year term, serving through October 10, 2003 and to appoint Ms. Felicia Hogan to fill the unexpired term, serving through October 10, 2001. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 8:05 P.M., Mayor Stone convened as the Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency; after which, Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:19 P.M. R:~Vlinutes\121200 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11 Reconsideration of Planning Application No. 99-0317 (Development Plan) -Temecula Ridge Apartments RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Reconsider previous denial of the Temecula Ridge Project. Planning Director Ubnoske provided a brief staff report (as per written material), noting that the following changes have been made to the project as a result of the November 28, 2000, City Council meeting: · Reduction in the number of units from 246 to 220 · Removal of the third floor from Type I buildings · Reduction in the size of the recreation center to accommodate a tot lot at that location · Lowering the higher portion of the site by 5' in an effort to reduce potential view impacts Further commenting on the project, Ms. Ubnoske advised of the following: · That 43% of the site will remain open space · That the School District will provide an additional bus in order to accommodate the potential students generated by this project · That as per the Development Code, 44 trees are to be planted in the rear (south side) of the property and that the developer is proposing to plant 118 trees and that according to the City's landscape architect, the trees will quickly grow and should screen this area within two to three years · That staff has readdressed the noise study and advised that an additional noise study will be completed at the time of issuance of building permits; that consultants of the noise study have indicated that at the worst case scenario, some of the project's windows may need to remain closed but that they will not be permanently closed · That Community Services Department has made revisions/additions to the conditions of approval which primarily deal with parkland dedication and landscaping of the median in front of the property, noting that although the developer is only required to pay 50% of the Quimby requirements, the developer has agreed to pay 100%. Senior Planner Hogan briefed the City Council on a meeting that Mr. Kading had with the neighboring Homeowners Associations, noting that 14 residents were in attendance and advising that discussion included the following: · Size and type of buildings being proposed · Removal of three-story buildings closest to the single-family homes · Total number of units - all of which have garages · Guest parking spaces · Perimeter walls versus fencing, noting that along the transition area closest to the single-family homes will be partially block and partially view fence; that the potentially impacted residents indicated satisfaction with that proposal; · Project may be gated R:~vlinutes\121200 6 · Rents will be similar to those at the Spanos project · Trail route to Mira Loma is not being proposed with this project · Residents expressed a concern with future development of the neighboring property to the east, indicating that this would not be a part of this proposal · Design issues, property value concerns, and infrastructure needs. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Mr. Hogan confirmed that only 14 residents were in attendance and noted that to his understanding, the applicant did make follow-up phone calls and sent written communication apprising of the scheduled meeting. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Hogan advised that the meeting was in the Main Conference Room at City Hall at 6:30 P.M. but that the meeting did not actually start until a little after 7:00 P.M., advising that the two homeowners associations closest to the project appeared to have no problem with the project. Referencing the number of meetings that have been scheduled with regard to this project, Mayor Stone noted that in his opinion the residents of this City have been properly and adequately noticed with regard to this project. At this time, Mayor Stone opened the public hearing. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 41530 Enterprise Circle, representing the applicant, offered a PowerPoint presentation to the City Council with regard to this project. Never having seen the PowerPoint presentation, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero spoke in support of proceeding with it. By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. A.G. Kading proceeded with a detailed overview of the proposed project, noting the following: · That in June of 1998 the project was presented to the City · That a market study was completed to determine needs which indicated apartment housing · That neighboring properties are zoned as follows: o West side - professional office o East side - professional office with a 70' height limit o Back side - zoned 20 units per acre - existing apartment project o Southwest side - 22 units per acre apartment project · That a three-dimensional study model was created for the project site; displaying this three-dimensional model, Mr. Kading reviewed various elements of the projects such as location, landscaping (location and one-year plant growth as well as five-year plant growth), product, project entrance, recreation center and its configuration, 25 yard pool, tot lot, fire truck accessibility requirements, various building types, three- story buildings reduced to two-story buildings, addition of three-bedroom units, etc. · That landscaping study boards were completed and neighboring residents had the opportunity to address plant matedal as it relates to the boundary lines as welt as project landscaping · That the closest neighboring resident will be 175' from the subject site · That the height of the finished floor level was reduced by 5' · That a previous condition had been imposed by staff with regard to not impacting view shed · That the type of project meets the needs of the community R:\Minutes\121200 7 For Mayor Stone, Mr. Mike McGanig, landscape architect, reviewed the proposed plant material, commenting on the proposed sizes ranging from 5-gallon to 24"- box trees, noting that the proposed landscaping will provide an instant screen and would provide good coverage within a short period of time. Mr. Gary Wiggle, Irvine, project architect, apprised the Councilmembers that he was in attendance and available to answer any questions with regard to this project. Addressing density issues that were raised by residents in the early 1980s, Mr. David Lowry, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, #201, encouraged the City Council to address and consider the quality of a project as well as its density and encouraged the City Council to approve this project. Mr. Tom Stultz, 32076 Corte Soledad, general manager of a manufacturing company in the City, relayed his support of this project and commented on the need for such housing in order to attract the right individuals needed to build the manufacturing future in the City of Temecula. Ms. Michelle Ash, 31370 Paseo De Las Olas, commented on the desirable amenities being provided by the developer and spoke in support of the project. In response to Ms. Ash, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero provided his definition of old traditions and new opportunities. Ms. Debbie Lindberg, 32519 Bergano Court, and son DJ and daughter Shannon, spoke in support of the project; commented on the lack of such housing in this City; and noted that the term affordability has a different meaning to everyone. Clarifying his definition of affordable housing, Councilman Naggar stated that affordable housing references subsidized housing, noting that the proposed project would not be subsidized housing and stated that he would not view these apartments as affordable. Mr. Naggar statedthat the issue is density and not whether to build or not to build apartments. Disagreeing with Councilman Naggar's comments, Mayor Stone stated that the definition of affordable housing has a different meaning for everyone and in light of the average home prices in the City ($200,000), he noted that a monthly rental payment would appear to be more affordable; that the issue is about the construction of apartments; and that the proposed project is a quality project with the least amount of density than any other apartment complexes in the City and with the highest architectural standards. Mr. David Rosenthal, 40516 Via Estrada, Murrieta, Vice President of the Southwest Riverside Manufacturing Council, commented on the need for such housing, especially one of this quality. Dedicating her comments to her friend, Mr. Jim Hollywood, who unexpectedly died last night, Ms. Kay Kading, Capistrano Beach, noted that her friend was a respected man but not necessarily always liked because of his commitment to truth and his ability to solve problems without an agenda - political, personal, or otherwise. Sharing specific examples such as statements made by residents, opposing developers, Presidents of Homeowner Associations, and Councilman, Ms. Kading stated that, in her opinion, Temecula Ridge has become a political issue and not one based on truth. She requested that a decision be made based on the facts and the truth. Mr. Tom Dodson, 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, environmental consultant representing the applicant, noted that he would reserve his time if there were the need for Council questions. R:~vlinutes\121200 8 Mr. Bob Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, thanked the City Council for its efforts with regard to this project and relayed his support of the project. Mrs. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, commented on the quality of the proposed project and its asset to the community and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to approve the project. Mr. Robert Oder, 30221 Mira Loma Drive, thanked the City Councilmembers for their efforts as it relates to this project; provided background information with regard to this site, including the appeal and denials of other previously pending projects; commented on the City's need for more apartment housing, specifically ones built at this quality level; and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to approve this project. Referencing a letter from Ms. Tamar Stein, attorney representing the Oder Family, Ms. Monica Sams, 30221 Mira Loma Drive, provided copies of Ms. Stein's letter to the City Clerk and relayed Ms. Stein's support of the recommended conditions of approval as well as staff's recommendation to approve the project. Considering the quality of this project and the amount of staff time this project has required, Mr. Les Shaw, Rancho California Road, property owner of the vacant property to the east of the subject site, spoke in support of the project and questioned if this project were denied, what would be go there. Mr. Paul Runkle, 4187 Enterprise Circle North, viewed the proposed project as an ideal in-fill project that will be compatible with existing zoning and one which will reduce urban sprawl and potentially traffic congestion. Addressing the noted concerns of density, Mr. Runkle stated that the proposed project will be at less than 10.6 units per acre which would be substantially less than neighboring apartment complexes and other newly constructed projects in the City. Mr. Bart Buchalter, 30000 Rancho California Road, commended the developer on a high-quality project; viewed the proposed project as a rather Iow-density project in comparison to other apartment projects; and encouraged the promotion of balanced housing in the City. Viewing the project as an award winning project, Mr. David Phares, 27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 301, stated the proposed project would only further enhance the quality of life and development for this City; advised that the Southwest Riverside County Economic Development Corporation supports economic growth in this community and, therefore, would support the proposed project in an effort to provide balanced housing which, in turn, would provide affordable housing which, in turn, is necessary to attract the needed individuals for the manufacturing business. Mr. Burlie Cole, 42567 Remora Street, President of the Alta Vista Community Association, thanked the developer for the organized community meeting with regard to this project; noted that the timing of a meeting will further determine the attendance of a meeting, noting the meeting was scheduled too early; viewed the proposed project as a changed project from what was presented in October; and stated that the project provides marketing amenities but not ones which truly benefit the local citizens. As per the City's Growth Management Plan, Mr. Cole discussed density, approving it at the lower end of the density range of 7 to 12 units per acre. In response to Councilman Roberts who had referenced a flier which had been distributed to the neighboring residents and reflected Mr. Cole's name, Mr. Cole advised that he had neither written nor passed out the flier; that he agrees and disagrees with some of the comments on the flier; and that he did not contribute to the content of the flier. With regard to the Growth Management Plan, Mayor Stone advised that the Plan is not an ordinance that it is a policy; noted that different Councilmembers have different interpretations of the policy as it pertains to the definition of public amenity. R:\Minutes\121200 9 In light of the amount of grading the proposed project will require, Ms. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera de Playa, expressed concern with regard to environmental impacts; thanked Councilman Roberts for walking the property; expressed concern with the planting of as many pine trees as are being proposed; and encouraged the use of existing landscaping such as sage. In response to Ms. McGregor, Mr. Tom Dodson, environmental consultant representing the applicant, informed the public that two site surveys (1999 and 2000) were completed with regard to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly - both of which found negative evidence of the butterfly; and advised that 1999 survey which included the entire site (22 acres) indicated one pair of gnatcatchers and that the 2000 survey indicated a pair of gnatcatchers. Because of the project's location, Mr. Dodson advised that site review with the Fish and Wildlife Service will be ongoing. Expressing appreciation to the City Council with regard to its efforts associated with this project, Mr. Clark Kegley, 41796 Homber Avenue, representing the Villages Homeowners Association, relayed his concern with density; requested because of its location to single-family homes, that the project be reduced to the lower end of the medium density range (7 to 12 units per acre). Mayor Pro Tem Comerchere reiterated that a multi-family project of the proposed density creates less density impacts than a single-family detached project at 7 units per acre. Echoing Mr. Comerchero's comments, Public Works Director Hughes noted that single-family homes tend, on the average based on nationwide trip generation factors, to produce more trip generation, stating that 147 single-family homes would generate a comparable amount of trips generated by a 226- unit apartment complex. Councilman Naggar stated that, in his opinion, averages are subjective. Concurring with Public Works Director Hughes' comment, Mr. Tom Dodson further clarified traffic data used in the determination of average tdp generations; stated that Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) as well as other jurisdictions are mandated to rely upon the ITE Manual as a basis for determining trip generation calculations. Public Works Director Hughes, for Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, stated that local factors were considered during the trip generation calculation for this particular project such as land uses within the study area which would lessen the driveway trips to Ranch California Road but that amenities such as higher level of recreational were not used in the calculation to lower the trip generation factor for this project. In response to Councilman Naggar who expressed concern with regard to inconsistencies in numbers as it relates to trip generation in the Wilbur Smith report for the project and the City and the ITE Manual, Mr. Hughes further clarified trip generation calculations; noted that 5.19 trips per dwelling unit would be a reasonable estimate of trips generated onto Rancho California Road as a result of this project. He advised that the industry standard for residential component with mixed use would be 6 to 7 trips per unit and 10 trips per single-family residence. Appreciating Councilman Naggar's efforts to discuss issues in the public forum versus solely by staff, Mr. Carl Ross, 43886 Butternut, expressed concern with the depreciation of property values were this project approved. Referencing the General Plan, Mr. Ross commented on the following: · Chapter 1 - demands consistency in zoning · Chapter 2 - emphasizes compatibility of future development with existing single-family homes; single-family homes are to be protected from out-of-scale buildings, noise impacts, traffic impacts, light, and density · Chapter 3 - high density housing project to be placed west of Interstate 15 R:\Minutes\121200 10 · Chapter 4 - ensures that a consistent set of policies within the General Plan are implemented by zoning and zoning code In closing, Mr. Ross encouraged the City Council to follow the guidelines; stated that the proposed project is a good project but is being proposed in the wrong location; that the project will be too dense for the zoning; and that the Planning Department should have rejected the project two years ago. For Mayor Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated that staff is recommending approval of the project; that the project will be 100% in conformance with the City's General Plan; that the General Plan identifies the site zoning as 7 to 12 units per acre; that the General Plan permits the development of apartments in zoning of 7 to 12 units per acre; and that this project is not at the maximum density. Mayor Stone stated that until now there hasn't been a market for the development of apartment complexes in medium density zoned areas. Deputy City Manager Thornhill stated that, in his opinion, for Councilman Naggar, this project would be in conformance with the City's Growth Management Plan. For Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, Planning Commissioner Matthewson stated that the Growth Management Plan was in place at the time the Commission approved this project and that the Commission did consider the Plan and its policies while making its decision. Advising that his name is on the flier that was distributed to the neighboring residents, Mr. Dave Boucher, 42797 Twilight Court, noted that he viewed the flier as a means to disseminate information and to make the public aware. Relaying his interpretation/understanding of the Growth Management Plan, Mr. Boucher stated that every residential project should be presented at the lowest density range and that a higher density range may be considered if amenities were provided; that the proposed project has not been required to adhere to those policies; and that the approval of this project would create value depreciation on neighboring properties. Councilman Roberts noted that this project started through the planning process prior to the City having adopted its Growth Management Plan. Councilman Nagger stated that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission was ill advised by relaying that the project should be offset by on-site/community amenities and, therefore, warranting the increase of approximately 100 units. Having had several Growth Management Plan meetings, Mayor Stone stated that he viewed on-site amenities as an amenity. Referencing the City's General Plan, Mr. Bob Eilek, 42471 Camino Place, stated the following: · Chapter 5 - no environmental impact has been conducted for this project, stating that the project site is located in a paleontological/archaeological area; promotion of a comprehensive system of trails and open space area that connect to schools and residential areas; protection of view of single-family homes, noting the proposed three- story buildings, although reduced in height, will impact the views; · Chapter 6 - maintaining the quality of life expected by the citizens of this community; provides a quality school system with adequate facilities, noting that the Vail Elementary School population is at or near capacity and, therefore, questioning where the children of this project will attend school. R:~¥1inutes\121200 11 Further addressing the City Council, Mr. Eilek stated that there are no true community amenities being provided by the developer, noting the following: · Improvements to Moraga Road - will function as the project's main entrance · Swimming pool - not open to the entire public · Landscaping of 49% - a necessity due to the amount of required grading Because no community amenities are being offered, the project should only be approved at 7 units per acre. In response to Mr. Eilek, Mr. Dodson addressed environmental issues pertaining to this project, advising of the following: · That an initial study was prepared; based upon the date obtained in this study, a conclusion was reached that this project could be implemented without causing any significant adverse impacts and, therefore, no Environmental Impact Report was required · That Fish and Wildlife Services commented on the study and indicated that specific issues required completion; that if Fish and Wildlife Services had concern with this project, representatives would be in attendance of this meeting · That the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly does not exist on the property of discussion · That the pair of gnatcatchers will be dealt with in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Services protocol and that there are no archaeological resources · That a mitigation measure was imposed, requiring the on-site services of a paleontologist to collect and curate any specific resources discovered during grading activities. Deputy City Manager Thornhill referenced Condition Nos. 13, 14, and 15 which require the services of a qualified Native American Resource expert as well as a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist prior and during grading activities. For Mayor Stone, Mr. Kading advised that of the 226 units over 50% are one-bedroom units and that this project will result in approximately $640,000 to $700,000 in school mitigation fees. With regard to a previously made comment that no community amenities are being provided by the developer, Mayor Stone voiced his opposition and stated that the Moraga Drive/Los Missiones improvements were not imposed by the City and that this improvement was a voluntary decision by the developer and one which he would view as a community amenity. Mr. Stone also noted that the developer would be paying 100% of the Quimby fee that equates to $150,000, which he would as well consider to be a community amenity. Mr. Charles Rich, 42403 Cadno Place, stated that at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, the citizens debated against this project for violations of the General Plan, its goals, and policies, and the Development Code; noted that, as outlined in the General Plan, apartment complexes should not be constructed next to single-family residential units; and that the citizens were under the impression that the City Council had rejected this project at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting. Referencing Sections of the General Plan which support the denial of apartments being constructed in a medium density zone because of land use compatibility issues and density issues, Mr. Rich commented on the following Chapters of the General Plan: · Chapter 8 - includes single-family homes as noise sensitive land; that single-family homes are frequently considered the most sensitive to noise; that noise studies, conducted in 1993 for the site of discussion, indicate noise levels to exceed the maximum allowable exterior noise level for residential use; that motor vehicles are the R:\Minutes\121200 12 dominant source of continuous noise; provides for the separation of significant noise generators from sensitive receptor areas; discourages noise sensitive land uses and to minimize noise conflict between land uses; limits the maximum permitted noise levels which cross property lines and impact adjacent land uses; requires proper evaluation of potential noise conflicts; to minimize noise impacts from transportation and noise sources and to construct barriers and maintain buffers to ensure the piece of quiet; Chapter 9 - emphasizes the importance of air quality through proper land use planning; to minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and single-family homes; to reduce air pollution emission to the greatest possible extent, questioning the lack of adherence, in his opinion, to the Growth Management Plan; to locate sensitive receptors away from major air pollution sources, noting that proposed density would create a high concentration of cars in a centralized area. Based on the requirements of Chapters 8 and 9 of the General, Mr. Rich stated that the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, and certain City Councilmembers are not interested in adhering to the City General Plan as well as the Growth Management Plan. Mr. and Mrs. Robyn and Stan Wright, 42415 Carino Place, referenced the following Chapters of the City's General Plan: Chapter 10 - emphasizes a Community Design Element, creating balance with surrounding areas; that the Planning Department originally agreed to proceed with the construction of a three-story building next to single-story homes; promote a cohesive development for large tracts of land; ensures high quality design that would be well integrated; limits light and glare pollution; preserves positive quality of individual neighborhoods; protects single-family homes from buildings that would be out of scale and provides for appropriate transition areas between a lower and a higher-density development; protects the public views of significant natural features - neighborhood compatibility between character of existing single-family neighborhoods and adjacent proposed projects; provides a density buffer transition to ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. Having personally completed a neighborhood analysis, Mr. and Mrs. Wright advised that the analysis includes four local neighborhoods on four random streets as well as a comparison of rental homes on the streets to regular homeowners, noting that the study was completed to determine how many cars were at each residence and to establish the ratio of cars per bedroom. Referencing the data obtained, the Wrights noted the following: · Streets surveyed were Twilight Court in Starlight Ridge, Corina Place in Alta Vista, Churchill Court in the Villages, and Butternut in Rancho Highlands · Homeowners surveyed were 58 - 204 bedrooms with 109 cars · Rentals surveyed were 9 - 29 bedrooms with 31 cars · Homeowners reflected 1.9 cars per house and .53 cars per bedroom · Rentals reflected 3~5 cars per house and 1.1 cars per bedroom, indicating 84% more cars per household and 108% more cars per bedroom in comparison to the homeowners. In light of their findings, Mr. and Mrs. Wright stated that the homeowners have 54% less impact than the rentals and, therefore, the proposed project should be approved at a maximum of 68 apartments units in the medium density zone which equates to 7 units per acre. R:~t, linutes\121200 13 With regard to previously made comments as to the lack of apartment vacancies in the community, Mr. David Micheal, 30300 Churchill Court, advised that he had called 15 apartment complexes in the community (Murrieta and Temecula), noting that there were availabilities. Mr. Micheal commented on the efforts of the citizens as it relates to this project. Apprising the City Council that behind her property is a Southern California Edison easement, Ms. Alfreda Lindsey, 30090 Santa Cecilia, advised that if individuals were to access this easement, they would as well be accessing her property; that she is unable to keep individuals from accessing this easement; that this easement would connect with the proposed project; that she would be concerned with children from the apartment complex utilizing this easement in order to travel to Vail Elementary School and to Temecula High School; and that, therefore, expressed a concern for her, her families, and the children's safety. Although viewing the proposed project as a quality project, Ms. Katherine Spignase, 29753 Avenida de Calazada, stated that the project would impact her view and, therefore, requested the construction of single-family homes. At 11:01 P.M., Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 11:10 P.M. Rebuttal Period Mr. Sam Alhadeff thanked the City Council and staff for their efforts with regard to this project. In response to comments/questions raised by the residents, Mr. Alhadeff noted the following: · That the Growth Management Plan redirects urban development to urban areas, noting that this project submittal was deemed complete prior to the City Council adopting the Growth Management Plan · That the Planning Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides on-site, community amenities · That the Planning Commission and the Planning Department staff have recommended approval of project · That with regard to the SCE easement, a fencing system will be developed, advising that ti'ie Oder Family had expressed a similar concern · That the developer has offered to dedicate the property necessary for a comprehensive trail system · That the current project is a changed project as a result of citizen input such as the reduction in density, the elimination of three-story buildings, and the reduction in building height · That the developer had to observe/adhere to the rules imposed by City staff as it relates to traffic studies; · That this project will be in compliance with the City's General Plan · That he would suspect that the homeowners of the Villages have not and will not experience a depreciation in property values as a result of the neighboring Portofino apartment complex. In light of the concern raised by a resident with regard to the planting of pine trees and the potential of beetles destroying these trees, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero requested that this matter be addressed prior to planting. At this time, the public hearing was closed by Mayor Stone. R:~vlinutes\121200 14 City Council discussion Relaying his passion with regard to traffic congestion in the City of Temecula, Councilman Pratt stated that the cutting of density would immediately relieve some traffic concerns and noted that public transportation would further resolve the City's traffic congestion. Viewing the traffic issue in the City as an emergency situation, Mr. Pratt requested the development of a comprehensive plan to address this issue and advised that until the matter is effectively resolved, he would be voting in opposition to any future development. Councilman Naggar expressed concern with constructing the proposed project basically at maximum density and future projects at maximum densities, noting the impacts such developments would have on the City. In light of the City's traffic issues, Mr. Naggar stated that the Growth Management Plan was created and, thereby, requiring projects to construct at minimum density, off set by community amenities; and that at the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, the City Council, with the exception of Mayor Stone, had agreed that the developer was not providing any community amenities and, therefore, the project would not be in conformance with the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Naggar expressed concern with what he viewed as discrepancies in the calculation of trip generation averages, the amount of dirt removal, adjacent land use compatibility, the construction of three-story buildings, and school overcrowding. Although it is permitted, Councilman Naggar noted that the City has previously not permitted the construction of apartments in medium-density zones. At this time, Mayor Stone reopened the public hearing. In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Jeff Okum, Assistant Superintendent of the Temecula Unified School District, referenced his letter in which he had indicated that bus service to the area of discussion will be impacted and, therefore, an additional bus would be provided if the project were approved; that the District is in the analyzing stages as it relates to whether or not to charge for bus transportation services; that the area of discussion is within walking distance to Vail Elementary School but that because of the lack of sidewalks, bus transportation is provided. At this time, the public hearing was closed by Mayor Stone. In light of the numerous meetings with regard to this project, Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero relayed his confusion as to how individuals are of the opinion that they have not had the opportunity or ability to properly address this project. With regard to apartment vacancy rates, Mr. Comerchero stated that a list he had obtained, which indicated a vacancy rate of less than half of one percent. Because of the various interpretations/understandings of community/on-site amenities, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero stated that the approval of this project and future projects should be based on the benefits the City is receiving at the specified density (number of bedrooms and number of people). With regard to this project, Mr. Comerchero noted that of the 220 units 20 will be three-bedroom units, 80 will be two-bedroom units, and 120 will be one-bedroom units, noting that the trip generation will be less with the varied mix in bedrooms versus with the construction of a 7-unit per acre single-family detached project. Mr. Comerchere advised that information he had obtained from Solana Ridge apartment complex, which indicated an average of 2.05 people per unit and from Tuscany Ridge apartment complex, which indicated as well 2.05 people per unit. Utilizing the 3.3 average number of people per unit for the various provided housing throughout the City, Mr. Comerchere noted that the difference between a single-family detached project on this site (approximately 21 acres) and the proposed project of 220 multi-family project, with the noted breakdown of bedroom units, would create 485 people for the single-family project at 147 units per acre at the lowest end of the density zone (7 units per acre at 3.3 per unit) and would create 451 people for the proposed project (220 units at 2.05 per unit, commenting on the reduction in multi- family housing even compared to the lowest density for single-family housing. With regard to trip R:\Minutes\121200 15 generation, Mr. Comerchero advised that the proposed project would generate 1,760 trips at 8 to 12 trips per unit and that a 147 single-family detached project at the lowest density would generate 1,764 trips, noting that this project would be lower than the average. Appreciating the residents' concerns with regard to General Plan compliance, Mr. Comerchero noted that this document has been followed by the City since its incorporation. Having met, at his request, with the developer on three separate occasions, Councilman Roberts commented on changes the developer has agreed to such as the lowering of 5' at the southern most end of the project and the reduction of three-story buildings to two-story buildings at the above ridge. Mr. Roberts advised that both residents, most adjacent to the project, are satisfied with the project and voice no additional concern and that there will be a 175' buffer between the existing single-family homes and the closest apartment unit. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, Mr. Roberts stated that the issue with regard to community/on-site amenities is an issue which must be resolved by the City Council. In closing, Mr. Roberts spoke in support of the project and briefly commented on the roadway extension, the additional school bus that will be provided and will serve two other apartment complexes, and the removal of dirt which will be donated to the City for its sports park. Thanking the residents, those for or against the project, for their input, Mayor Stone stated that this input created an already good project into an even better project and noted that community/on-site amenities should be evaluated when approving a project, stating that he would view the following as amenities being provided by this developer: · Pool · Tot lot · Street improvements · Quimby fees · Garages · Laundry facilities Mayor Stone noted that the City's General Plan reflects the undesirability of urban sprawl, noting that the proposed project would be constructed adjacent to like uses and, therefore, would eliminate urban sprawl. If this project were denied, Mr. Stone commented on the developer's option to proceed with a Iow-moderate project, noting that State could preempt local authority with such projects. In response to Councilman Pratt's concern with regard to traffic and suggestion to proceed with mass transportation, Mayor Stone stated that the City should not hold every land owner victim to the autoculture and that the City of Temecula cannot change the autoculture by itself. In closing, Mr. Stone noted that the project followed the process, complies with the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan and, therefore, relayed his support of the project. For Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that the density bonuses for a Iow-income project would be one and a half time the maximum allowable density; that a Iow-income project would have to complete an environmental review, zoning, etc.; and that denial of such a project would require a higher standard and more detailed findings. R:\Minutes\121200 16 MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to adopt the resolution approving the project. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and roll call vote reflected approval as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-8t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 03t7 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE TEMECULA RIDGE APARTMENT PROJECT REDESIGNED TO 220 UNITS, TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH POOL, CLUBHOUSE, WORKOUT BUILDING AND TOT LOT ON 20.88 NET ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MORAGA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATED THERETO. AYES: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone NOES: Naggar, Pratt CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that in Closed Session, the City Council gave direction with respect to each of those matters; that there were no actions to report under the Brown Act; and that the real property matter would be forwarded to the City Council for formal approval. In order for the City Council to continue its Closed Session discussion, Mr. Thorson recommended that this meeting be adjourned to Friday, December 12, 2000, at 6:00 P.M. R:~,,linutes\121200 17 ADJOURNMENT At 12:10 A.M. on Wednesday, December 13, 2000, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Friday, December 15, 2000, for the purpose of continuing discussion of the Closed Session items as noted on the December 12,2000, City Council Agenda, at 6:00 P.M., in the Main Conference Room, at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:~vlinutes\121200 18 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER '19, 2000 The City Council convened in Closed Session at 5:30 P.M. and convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, December 19, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Absent: PRELUDE MUSIC Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone Councilmember: None. The prelude music was provided by the Musicians Workshop Youth Choir- Esther Derbach. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Murray Hollis of Southwest Christian Church. ALLEGIANCE The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Naggar. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Appreciation for Frank Peiars Although Mr. Peiars was unable to attend the meeting, Mayor Stone read the proclamation honoring Mr. Peiars and noted that it would be forwarded to him. Certificate of Appreciation for Jeff Nimeshein Accepting the Certificate and thanking the City Council for the recognition and special honor, Mr. Nimeshein viewed his opportunity to serve on the Community Services Commission as a privilege. Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero, personally, commended Mr. Nimeshein on his efforts and accomplishments. City Manager Nelson as well thanked Mr. Nimeshein for his years of support and for his genuine caring and concern for the community. Introduction of Mr. Gary Milliman - new Director for the League of California Cities Advising that he is the new Southern California Director for the League, Mr. Milliman reviewed proposed reorganization and restructuring of the Southern California offices; provided an overview of his background history; apprised of the various services provided by the League; and commented on future issues and focuses of the League. R:~linutes\121900 1 Certificate of Appreciation Mayor Stone presented the Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Elton and Jean Ward for their continual support to the City, by attending each City Council meeting, even though the Wards are not City residents and, therefore, Mayor Stone designated Mr. and Mrs. Ward as honorary citizens. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Roberts wished everyone a Happy Holiday Season and invited the public to view his Holiday message on the Web. B. Serving on the Budget and Finance Committee of the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA), Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero advised that 94 new buses have been approved (47 of them CNG and the other 47 possibly diesel); that two weeks ago, the Committee elected to readdress the Board in order to recommend that the other 47 buses (possibly diesel) as well be designated as CNG buses; and that the decision would be made by the Board on Thursday, December 21, 2000. For Councilman Pratt, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that all 94 buses will travel to the City of Temecula. C. Councilman Pratt commended Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero for his donations of toys and food to the Senior Citizen Center and as well commended Ms. Denise Lanier (Human Resources Analyst) and her daughter (Meggan Keller) on an outstanding performance at the Messiah, D. Having attended a recent Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting, Councilman Pratt commented on his pleasure with the progress of his Traffic Circulation Plan. Mr. Pratt wished everyone a Merry Christmas. E. Reflecting on his first full year as a City Councilman, Councilman Naggar offered his thanks to Mayor Stone, noting that his structure, as Mayor, has been a benefit to him as a new City Councilmember. Councilman Naggar requested that City Manager Nelson relay his thanks and appreciation to City Staff for their continued efforts; and to the citizens of this City, Mr. Naggar stated that he has been honored and is proud to serve as a City Councilmember for this City. F. Appreciating the opportunity and privilege of representing the citizens of the City of Temecula as Mayor for the second time, Mayor Stone noted that the City has had many accomplishments because of its City Council and because its City Staff. Thanking the citizens for this opportunity, Mr. Stone noted that he has served eight years on the City Council and that it has been a wonderful eight years. Mayor Stone thanked City Manager Nelson for his input during congenial and spirited meetings. R;\Minutes\121900 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1,1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Resolution approvin,q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 2,1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 3 Grant of Easement Rancho California Water District- Rancho California Sports Park RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled; RESOLUTION NO. 2000-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR PIPELINE AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES RELATED TO TEMECULA SPORTS PARK RECLAIMED WATER CONVERSION PROJECT RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT PROJECT NO. D0774 4 Caltrans Master and Program SupplementalAqreements RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 08-5459, DATED MARCH 7, 1997, AND ALL PERTINENT PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECTS R:~linutes\121900 3 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000.05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 08-04571 DATED NOVEMBER 10, t999, AND ALL PERTINENT PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR STATE FUNDED PROJECTS 5 Parcel Map No. 27987 (located at the northeast corner of Country Glen Way and Via Rio Temecula Road RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 27987 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 5.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 5.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. 6 Tract Map No. 28482 (located north of Royal Birkdale Drive, east of Temeku Drive, west of Meadows Parkway, and north and along Royal Oaks Drive in the Mar.qarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve Tract Map No. 28482 in conformance with the conditions of approval; 6.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement; 6.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, and Monument Bond as security for the agreements. 7 Amendment to Professional Services Agreement Inspection Services - Various Projects RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Survey Services Agreement with Vail Cooper and Associates, Inc. for an amount equal to $18,480.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. R:\Minutes\121900 4 8 Acceptance of Right of Entry and Temporary Construction Easement Recordation of Sound Wall Covenants - Pala Road Sound Wall - Project No. PW97-15SW RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING THE RIGHT OF ENTRY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND ORDERING THE RECORDATION OF THE SOUND WALL COVENANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PALA ROAD SOUND WALL 9 Professional Services Agreement- Project Design Consultants Murrieta Creek Bridqe and Overland Drive Extension - Project No. PW00-26 - Desiqn Phase 1 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the agreement with Project Design Consultants to provide professional engineering and design services for the Design Phase 1 Alignment Study for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for construction of the extension of Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road - Project No. PW00-26 - for the not to exceed amount of $83,419.00, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; 9.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the contract or $8,342.00. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 9. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:30 P.M., Mayor Stone convened as the Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency and at 7:33 P.M., Mayor Stone reconvened the City Council meeting. COUNCIL BUSINESS 10 Appointment of Council Officers for the Year 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Appoint the Mayor to preside until December 31, 2001. 10.2 Appoint the Mayor Pro Tem who will assume the duties of the Mayor in the Mayor's absence and hold this office until December 31, 2001. R:\Minutes\121900 5 MOTION: Councilman Pratt moved to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero as Mayor for the year 2001. The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to appoint Councilman Roberts as Mayor Pro Tem for the year 2001. The motion was seconded by Mayor Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At this time, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero presented outgoing Mayor Stone with a Plaque of Appreciation, commending him on a job well done. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS No additional comments. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Thanking the City Council for its support over the past 12 months and past years, City Manager Nelson commended the Council on its excellent policy decisions and on its vision for the City. On behalf of City Staff, Mr. Nelson extended appreciation to the City Council for its continued efforts and support. In closing, Mr. Nelson extended his appreciation to City Staff and to the citizens of this City for their continued support. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With respect to the real property matters listed under Closed Session, City Attorney Thorson advised that the City Council gave direction to staff and noted that any formal approval of property acquisition would be discussed and considered by the City Council in Open Session. Mr. Thorson as well advised that the City Council authorized his office to file a legal action against the County of Riverside and the Auditor Controller of the County of Riverside in an effort to seek appropriate relief for the incorrect property tax allocation for past years, advising that the vote was 4 to I with Councilman Roberts opposing such action. ADJOURNMENT At 7:39 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Wednesday, January 9, 2001, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. A'CrEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\121900 6 RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section t. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $3,827,160.49. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 13th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 2001- 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No, 2001- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of February, 2001 by the following roll call vote': AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Resos 2001- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 01/18/01 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 01/25/01 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 02/01/01 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 02/13/01 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 01/18101 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 02/01101 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 07J18191 COUNCIL MEETING; DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND 261 CFD 88-12 ADMtN EXPENSE FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-ClP 300 INSURANCE FUND 310 VEHICLES FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE 100 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA-LOW/MOD SET WIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: ~HAW~NELSON, CITY MANAGER $ 331,557.22 1,151,596.81 1,126,734.81 785,589.49 211,920.27 219,761.89 $ 3,827,160.49' 799,399.46 18,507.13 132,835.75 30,086.85 23,492.95 6,224.72 2,850.00 604,441.54 1,389.15 578,218.75 12,139.76 103,418.08 33,656.48 5,864.76 10,936.26 1,032,016.69 315,060.45 7,563.10 72,633.61 118.46 6,227.91 3,574.76 12,022.23 3,925.40 7,985.63 $ 3,395,478.33 431,682.16 $ 3,827,160.49 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. VOUCHREE CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 11 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 ROA DEV- LOg/MOO SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES AMOUNT 169,296.58 5,199.89 53,383.66 30,040.64 2,936.55 329.82 41,237.77 1,389.15 12,369.74 3,511.78 7,760.88 1,580.72 2,520.04 TOTAL 331,557.22 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 66881 66882 66883 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 90921 769852 769852 769052 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769052 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 769852 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/12/01 01/12/01 01/16/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 DYNAMITE DAVE 003681 DAVIDSON & ALLEN, ARCHI 004410 DAVIS, MARY A. 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS ~MPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 IRSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 [NSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 IRSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) ITEM DESCRIPTION ENTERTAINMENT:FAMILY FUN NGHT DESIGN SVC:MNTC FAC PHASE III JAN 2001 MANAGEMENT SERVICES 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS RET 000246 PERS-PRE 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000246 SURVIVOR 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 00028] FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 FEDERAL 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 00028] MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000285 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE 000283 MEDICARE ACCOUNT NUMBER 210-190-158-5802 210-190-165-5801 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 ]00-2390 320-2390 ]30-2390 340-2390 001-2130 001-2390 165-2390 190-2390 192-2390 193-2390 194-2390 280-2390 300-2390 ]20-2]90 330-2390 340-2]90 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 ]00-2070 320-2070 330-2070 ITEM AMOUNT 85.00 8,645.17 7,275.00 26,114.95 651.49 4,824.21 11.61 429.44 98.47 282.59 127.82 987.17 206.19 5?9.98 140.96 88.59 1.87 18.89 .05 2.00 .36 .92 .46 3.72 1.39 2.65 24,773.46 397.61 4,779.29 15.84 390.51 126.00 142.90 74.25 968.26 256.79 540.49 5,935.73 142.96 1,309.26 2.62 109.42 21.73 62.14 29.24 245.54 70.64 CHECK AMOUNT 85.00 8,645.17 7,275.00 34,575.78 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMEOULA PAGE 2 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM ACCO~JNT ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT 769852 01/18/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340'2070 141.25 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SOl 001-2070 102.40 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SOl 165-2070 3.18 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SOl 190-2070 81.56 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070 2.80 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280-2070 .66 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 2.98 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SOl 330-2070 7.38 769927 01/18/01 000444 INETATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 340-2070 .60 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 6,697.17 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 111.78 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 1,107.49 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EOO) 000444 STATE 192-2070 4.68 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 85.67 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDO) 000444 STATE 194-2070 36.05 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 45.41 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX CEDD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 15.32 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320-2070 203.61 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 58.01 769927 01/18/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 119.70 66887 66888 66889 66890 66890 66890 66890 66891 66891 66891 66892 66892 66893 66893 66893 66893 66893 ~893 66893 66893 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 ABRAHAMIAN~ KASEY 004054 ADKISON ENGINEERS INC 003394 AIRGAS FIRE PROTECTION 003799 ALKHAS, JACQUELYN 003799 ALKHAS, JACQUELYN 003799 ALKNAS, JACQUELYN 003799 ALKHAS, JACQUELYN 004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE, 004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE, 004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE, 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV ANN ARBOR PRESS 66894 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 NOV-DEC SURVEY SVC:lst ST BRDG 280-199-807-5804 FIRE SUPPRESSION SYS:A/V ROOM 320-199-999-5250 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 MAR STORAGE RENTAL:B&S CITY RECORDS STORAGE UNIT CITY RECORDS STORAGE UNIT 001-162-999-5250 001-120-999-5277 001-120-999-5277 AICP MBSHP:JOHN MEYER 060409 APA MBSHP:JOHN MEYER 060409 280-199-999-5226 165-199-999-5226 DEC MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:C.HALL DEC MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MNTC FAC DEC MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:ER CTR DEC MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CRC DEC MAT/TOWEL RENTAL: TCC DEC MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MUSEUM DEC UNIFORMS RENTAL:PW MNTC DEC UNIFORMS RENTAL=TCSD MNTC 340-199-701-5250 340-199-702-5250 190-181-999-5250 190-182-999-5250 190-1~-999-5250 190-185-999-5250 001-164-601-5243 190-180-999-5243 BK:COUE 41391 PRACTICAL DRAIN 190-180-999-5228 100.00 3,542.50 572.50 140.00 140.00 140.00 220.00 124.00 248.00 124.00 163.00 163.00 104.25 42.75 64.20 104.15 46.20 37.50 108.50 87.50 64.95 CHECK AMOUNT 40,535.93 8,686.45 100.00 3,542.50 572.50 640.00 496.00 326.00 595.05 64.95 VOEJCHRE2 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66895 01/18/01 66895 01/18/01 66895 01/18/01 66895 01/18/01 66895 01/18/01 66896 01/18/01 66097 01/18/01 66897 01/18/01 66897 01/18/01 66897 01/18/01 66897 01/18/01 66898 01/18/01 66899 01/18/01 66899 01/18/01 66899 01/18/01 66900 01/18/01 66901 01/18/01 66902 01/18/01 66903 01/18/01 66904 01/18/01 66905 01/18/01 66906 01/18/01 66907 01/18/01 66907 01/18/01 66908 01/18/01 66908 01/18/01 66909 01/18/01 66910 01/18/01 66911 01/18/01 66912 01/18/01 66913 01/18/01 66914 01/18/01 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCBER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 002648 ITEM DESCRIPTION 003137 BARKERS FOOD MACHINERY 003137 BARKERS FOOD MACHINERY 003137 BARKERS FOCO MACHINERY 003137 BARKERS FOOD MACHINERY 003137 BARKERS FOOD MACHINERY 004396 BJF ENTERPRISES INC 004396 BJF ENTERPRISES INC 004396 BJF ENTERPRISES INC 003817 BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL 003126 003582 003138 001090 000933 TEMP HELP W/E 12/23 SIMPK1NS TEMP HELP U/E 12/23 WAYMENT TEMP HELP W/E 12/23 ROSA TEMP HELP ~/E 12/23 BRUNER TEMP HELP W/E 12/23 BRUNER AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C MEMBERSHIP:LADONNA SULLENS CRC DISHWASBER REPAIRS LABOR. TRAVEL. SALES TAX ADD~L WORK:CRC DISHWASHER BESWICK, STEVEN REIMB:MBSHP-REG ENGINEER 35 ABSORBENT BAGS: PW MNTC FREIGHT SALES TAX PAR~J4EDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES:FIRE BOOMGAARDEN, DENNIS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS BROWN JR., WILLIAM E. MILEAGE REIMB PW TRFF DIVISION BROWN, PASCALE REIMB:GFOA TRAINING-01/8-9/O0 CAL MAT PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS CALIF DEPT OF GENERAL S PLAN CK SVC:CHAPARRAL AQUATICS CALIF DEPT OF TRANSPORT INSPECT FEE:IST STREET BRIDGE 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATIO PLYGRND SAFETY:HARRINGTON:6/18 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATIO MEMBEBSNIP: BRUCE WEDEKING 002520 CALIF T,B BY TRANSCEND 002520 CALIF T~S BY TRANSCEND 004073 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATR 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY CANYON/CAHAN TEMECULA, CHARETTE, STEVEN 004203 CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIO 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT PW MNTC SWEAT & T-SHIRTS SALES TAX FEB-MAR TRFFC CTRL 79S @ I15 RECREATION SUPPLIES FOR TCC REFUND: LD99-207GR PM 28939 REIMB:MBSHP-PROF ENGINEERS 004203 AR CHILD 004405 CNC ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-161'999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001'162'999-5118 001-162'999'5118 190-180-999-5226 190-182'999'5212 190-182'999'5212 190'182'999'5212 190-182-999'5212 190-182-999-5212 001-165-999'5226 001-164-601'5430 001-164'601'5430 001-164~601-5430 001'171-999-5311 190'183'999-5330 001'164'602-5262 001-140-999-5261 001'164'601-5218 210'190-170'5802 280-199-807-5804 190-180'999-5261 190'180-999-5226 001-164-601-5243 001-164-601-5243 210'165-631-5801 190'184'999-5301 001-2670 001-165-999-5226 190-2140 001-2120 ITEM AMOUNT 468.OO 280.80 187.32 113.94 189.90 43.00 581.90 155.25 37.50 45.10 195.75 335.00 567.OO 100.00 43.95 174.88 146.40 63.48 231.20 61.96 15~010.00 3,920.00 535.00 125.00 432.00 33.48 lt056.75 25.70 995.00 160.00 111.48 123.50 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 1,239.96 43.00 1,015.50 335.00 710.95 174.88 146.40 63.48 231.20 61.96 15,010.00 3,920.00 660.00 465.48 1,056.75 25.70 995.00 160.00 111.48 VOUEHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 66914 66914 66914 66914 66914 66915 66916 66917 66918 66918 66919 66920 66921 66922 ~922 66923 66924 66925 66926 66927 66927 66928 66928 66928 66928 66928 66928 66928 66928 66928 66928 66929 66930 66930 CHECK DATE 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC 001629 CREATIVE HYDNOSEED INC 001714 DREAM ENGINEERING IBC 001714 DREAM ENGINEERING IBC 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 002283 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL EMMANUEL CHRISTIAN FEL EMMANUEL CHRISTIAN FEL EMDLANUEL CHRISTIAN FELL 001165 ENTERTAINMEBT PUBLICATI 002939 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R ESTABROOK, CAROL 002060 EUROPEAN DELI & CATERIN 002060 EUROPEAN DELI & CATERIN 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 001701 EXCEL RENTAL CENTER 000478 FAST SIGNS 000478 FAST SIGNS ITEM DESCRIPTION 004405 CHC 004405 CHC 004405 CHC 004405 CHC 004405 CHC EE COMPUTER PRGM:MARGIE CAGEY CITYWIDE TRFFC COUNT SVCS HYDROSEED R.C. SLOPES FIELD LGHTS:ELECT ENG SVCS SPRT FAC-BOND COPIES & POSTAGE TEMP HELP W/E 12/29 THURSTON 95366-02 DIEGO DR LDSC HTL:HATE CRIME PRESENTATION REFUND: ROOM RENTAL/SECURITY REFUND: ROOM RENTAL/SECURITY REFUND: ROOM RENTAL TCSD TEEN FUND-RAISER BK SELLS MIGRATING TO ARCVIEWB:BEAL:6/7 REFUND:EX-GETTY MUSEUM REFSHMNTS:CEQA LUNCH TRAINING REFSHMNT:COUNCIL MTG 01/09 AUG LDSCP REPAIRS:PAVILLION NOV LDSCP REPAIRS:MARGARITA PK NOV LDSCP REPAIRS:PAVILLION NOV LDSCP REPAIRS:BARCLAY NOV LDSCP REPAIRS:RYCREST RD JAN LDSCP REPAIRS:RANCHO CA RD JAN LDSCP REPAIRS:SAM HICK PK JAN LDSCP REPAIR$:TEMEXU PRK JAB LDSCP REPAIRS:TEMEKU HILLS JAN LDSCP REPAIRS:YNEZ/SANTIAG LGHT TWRS/GENERATORS:PARADE REFURBISH 6TH STREET SIGN LETTERING FOR ANTIQUE IRONS ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-2120 193-2120 194-2120 330-2120 340-2120 001-1175 001-164-602-5250 193-180-999-5415 210-190-174-5802 210-190-174-5802 190-186-999-5118 193-180-999-5240 001-170-999-5261 190-182-4990 190-2900 190-182-4990 190-183-4980 001-161-610-5261 190-183-4986 001-161-999-5260 001-100-999-5260 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 193-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5238 280-199-999-5362 190-185-999-5301 ITEM AMOUNT 5.60 .60 .20 5.50 .60 2,000.00 2,050.00 560.00 26.80 35.45 1,319.04 107.56 86.10 55.00 100.00 30.00 576.00 800.00 34.00 71.28 206.81 453.34 78.49 41.85 78.58 231.47 78.98 89.58 421.64 337.20 173.54 3,753.30 70.04 31.79 CHECK AMOUNT 136.00 2,000.00 2,050.00 560.00 62.25 1,319.04 107.56 06.10 155.00 30.00 576.00 800.00 34.00 278.09 1~984.67 3,753.30 101.83 VOUOMRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PACE 5 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 66931 66931 66931 66931 66931 66931 66931 66932 66932 66933 66934 66935 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66936 66937 66938 66938 66939 66940 66940 66940 66940 66940 66940 66940 66941 66942 66943 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS [NC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOC 001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOC 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M G E 0 WORLD 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLEMMIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLEHNIES OFFICE PRODUCT 000177 GLENN[ES OFFICE PRODUCT 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI 000194 000194 000194 000194 000194 000194 000194 NADJIS, MARCINA HADJIS, MARCINA HERRERA, VICKY ITEM DESCRIPTION EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES NOV FINANCIAL ADVISORY SVCS CRDT:INVOICE EXCEEDS CONTRACT XX-1143 PARKER:SLACK ANGUS PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS ANN'L SUBSCRIPTION:GIS DEPT CABINETS:CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:COPY CTR MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CITY CLKS ERGONOMIC KEYBOARD TRAY:FINANC SALES TAX MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FIRE DEPT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HR MISC OFFICE SUPPLIE$:PLANBIHG MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:B&S MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:RDA MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:RDA MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:INF SYS MBSHP:G.ROBERTS/T.McDERMOTT ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-111-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 001-165-999-5230 001-164-604-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 001-150-999-5230 001-140-999-5248 001-140-999-5248 190-180-999-5260 001-150-999-5250 001-161-610-5228 001-120-999-5242 330-199-999-5220 001-120-999-5220 001-140-999-5242 001-140-999-5242 001-140-999-5220 001-171-999-5220 001-150-999-5220 001-161-999-5220 001-162-999-5220 165-199-999-5220 280-199-999-5220 320-199-999-5221 001-140-999-5226 REFUND: ROOM RENTAL/SECURITY 190-183-4990 REFUND: ROOM RENTAL/SECURITY 190-2900 REFUND: ELECT LGHT BUS TOUR C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 003319 INLAND ENTERTAINMENT RO 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL 002140 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS AD:OLD TWN DICKENS FESTIVAL POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS E-MAIL MONTHLY SUPPORT & MAINT 190-183-4986 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 193-2080 194-2080 280-2080 300-2080 280-199-999-5362 190-186-999-5250 320-199-999-5211 ITEM AMOUNT 29.78 39.27 18.52 10.52 17.53 35.55 29.73 3,255.45 2,325.65- 52.35 360.00 72.0B 256.81 34.20 265.84 313.62 24.31 220.43 20.81 43.99 390.52 176.61 10.76 10.76 233.89 255.00 168.00 100.00 14.00 2,392.33 445.85 413.48 40.00 16.51 148.62 50.00 200.00 92.11 300.00 CHECK AMOUNT 180.90 929.80 52.35 360.00 72.00 2,002.55 255.00 268.00 14.00 3,506.79 200.00 92.11 300.00 VOUCHRE2 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66944 01/18/01 66945 01/18/01 66946 01/18/01 66946 01/18/01 66947 01/18/01 66948 01/18/01 66948 01/18/01 66948 01/18/01 66949 01/18/01 66950 01/18/01 66950 01/18/01 66951 01/18/01 66951 01/18/01 66952 01/18/01 66953 01/18/01 66954 01/18/01 66954 01/18/01 66955 01/18/01 66956 01/18/01 66956 01/18/01 66956 01/18/01 66957 01/18/01 66957 01/18/01 66957 01/18/01 66958 01/18/01 66958 01/18/01 66959 01/18/01 66959 01/18/01 66960 01/18/01 66960 01/18/01 66960 01/18/01 66961 01/18/01 66961 01/18/01 66961 01/18/01 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME JOHNSON, KEVIN JOHNSTON, ALYCE 003181 dON EDWARDS & ASSOCIATE 003181 JOB EDWAROS& ASSOCIATE 003280 JOB LASKIR HAND KAZ I.E.A., INC KAZ I.E.A., IRC KAZ I.E.A., INC 004104 KINETIC SYSTEMS IRC 004104 KINETIC SYSTEMS INC 003631 KLEINFELDER INC 003631 KLEINFELDER INC KULT, ROBE 004051 L 0 R 6EOTECNNICAL 6ROU 000945 L P S CCNMPUTER SERVICE 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE 0019~ LA SALLE LIGHTING SERVI 004087 LOWE'S 004087 LOWE'S 004087 LOWE'S 004141 MAIBTEX 004141 MAINTEX IRC 004141 MAINTEX INC 003444 MARTIN & CHAPMAN COMPAN 003444 MARTIN & CHAPMAN COMPAN 004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA 004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA MATLOCK ASSOCIATES MATLOCK ASSOCIATES MATLOCK ASSOCIATES 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION REFUND: ANIMAL CITATION 7398 REFUND: SPRTS-SKYHWK FLAG FTBL PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS:ECOR DEVEL SALES TAX ENTERTAINMENT:OLD TWN EVENT REFUND:OVRPT BOO-O561/BO0-1550 REFUND:OVRPT 800-0561/800-1550 REFUND:OVRPT BOO-O561/BO0-1550 REFUND:LDOO-O22GR 24085 3 PAR HVAC MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL HVAC MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL HEP-OCT GEOTECH:CHAPARRAL HS NOV-DEE GEOTEC SVC:PALA BRIDGE REFUND: WHAT'S COOKING DEC GEOTECR SVC:IST ST BRIDGE RP PRINTER MAINTENANCE SVC HP PRINTER SUPPLIES BALLFIELD LIGHT REPAIRS HARDWARE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT HARDWARE SUPPLIES:HR CENTER HARDWARE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT CITY HALL CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 1/01/01-12/31/01 CONSULT FEES QTY 4 WALL CALENDARS CONSULTING SVCS:1/02-12/01 CONSULTING SVCS:1/02-12/01 REFUND:PERMIT OVRPMT:SO0-2402 REFUND:PERMIT OVRPMT:BO0-2402 REFUND:PERMIT OVRPMT:BO0-2402 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES ACCOUNT NUMBER 001'161-4255 190-183-4982 001'111-999'5270 001-111-999-5270 280-199-999-5362 001'162'4203 001-2280 001-162-4285 001-2670 340'199'701-5212 340'199'701-5212 210-190-170-5802 210-165-631-5801 190'183'4982 280-199-807'5804 320-199-999-5215 320-199-999-5221 190'180'999-5212 001'171-999-5212 190-181-999-5212 001-171-999-5212 340'199'701'5212 340-199-701~5212 190-182'999'5212 001-120-999-5250 001-120-999-5220 001-161-999'5248 001-161'999'5248 001-162-4285 001-162-4200 001-2280 001-170'999'5262 001-1990 190-180'999'5263 ITEM AMOUNT 50.00 22.00 1,500.00 123.75 100.00 170.63 41.38 448.75 995.00 160.00 310.00 207.00 715.00 12.00 1~672.00 396.65 775.83 233.05 4.07 13.93 14.48 57.80 328.42 125.~ 300.00 9.31 1,603.30 5.00 191.00 165.75 7.02 155.51 45.07 36.03 PAGE 6 CHECK AMOUNT 50.00 22.00 1,623.75 100.00 660.76 995.00 470.00 922.00 12.00 1,672.00 1,172.48 233.05 32.48 511.95 309.31 1,608.30 363.77 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 66961 01/18/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 66961 01/18/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 66961 01/18/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 66961 01/18/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-140-999-5262 001-150-999-5262 001-164-601-5263 001-165-999-5263 10.68 12.96 30.39 38.07 328.71 66962 01/18/01 NAGGAR, MIKE REIMB:LEAGUE CF:12/06-10/00 001-100-999-5258 19.35 19.35 66963 01/18/01 003961 NEW HORIZONS VISUAL BASIC APPL:DEAL:4/2-4 001-161-610-5261 900.00 90~.00 66964 01/18/01 003964 OFFICE DEPOT OUSINESS S 66964 01/18/01 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S 66964 01/18/01 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 001-140-999-5220 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 001-140-999-5220 MISC OFFICE BUPPLIEB:CM OFFICE 001-110-999-5220 52.88 42.37 47.30 142.55 66965 01/18/01 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 66965 01/18/01 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 66965 01/18/01 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 66965 01/18/01 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CREDIT:SALES TAX 190-180-999-5214 001-164-601-5214 001-162-999-5214 190-180-999-5214 519.52 122.72 217.76 1.09- 858.91 66966 01/18/01 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC 66966 01/18/01 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC 66967 01/18/01 002297 PACIFIC RELOCATION CONS 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGENET 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGENET 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGENET 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGENET 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGERET 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGENET 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGENET 66968 01/18/01 001561 PAGENET NOV TEMP BLDG INSPECTOR SVC OCT TEMP BLDG IHSPECTOR SVC 001-162-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 OCT/NOV RELOCATION CONSULT SVC 210-190-165-5804 DEC-MAR PAGING/RENTAL SVCB DEC-MAR PAGING/RENTAL SVCS DEC-MAR PAGING/RENTAL SVCS DEC-MAR PAGING/RENTAL SVCS DEC-MAR PAGING/RENTAL BVCB DEC-MAR PAGING/RENTAL BVCS DEC-MAR PAGIRG/HENTAL SVCS CREDIT:REPLACEMENT CHARGES 330-199-999-5250 001-110-999-5238 001-150-999-5250 001-170-999-5238 001-164-601-5238 320-199-999-5258 190-180-999-5238 320-199-999-5238 10,449.32 6,336.48 3,845.00 44.74 40.69 40.69 164.00 85.43 162.90 497.13 159.90' 16,785.80 3,845.00 875.68 66969 01/18/01 PEFFERS, GAYLE REFUND:EXCUR-THE GETTY MUSEUM 190-183-4986 34.00 34.00 66970 01/18/01 003218 PELA 66970 01/18/01 003218 PELA 66971 01/18/01 002331 66972 01/18/01 66973 01/18/01 66973 01/18/01 66973 01/18/01 66973 01/18/01 66973 01/18/01 66973 01/18/01 66974 01/18/01 66974 01/18/01 PEP BOYS INC NOV/DEC LDSCP PLN CK:SPORTS PK 210-190-178-5802 NOV/DEC LDSCP PLN CK:LONG CYN 001-163-999-5248 AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES 001-164-601-5214 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COHPAN 002776 PRIME MATRIX IRC 002776 PRIME MATRIX IRC 001-2122 DEC DISPL ADS:DICKENS HOLIDAY 280-199-999-5362 DEC DISPL ADS:VAR CIP UPDATES 001-165-999-5256 DEC DIBPL ADS:TCSD HOL. EVENTS 190-180-999-5254 DEC VAR PUBL NTCS:CITY CLERK 001-120-999-5256 DEC VAR PUBLIC NTCS:PLANNING 001-161-999-5256 DEC PUBLIC NTC:CITY CLERK 001-120-999-5256 DEC CELLULAR SVCS:SR VAN DEC CELLULAR SVCS:CITY VAN 190-180-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 516.00 516.00 107.49 154.60 300,00 1,521.45 570.00 70.50 137.65 21.50 49.26 31.07 1,032.00 107.49 154.6D 2,621.10 80.33 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE 8 01/18/01 11:22 VOUDHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK HUMBER 66975 66976 66976 66976 66977 66977 66978 66978 66979 66980 66980 66980 66980 66980 66980 66980 66981 66981 66982 66983 66984 66985 66986 66987 66988 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 66989 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 RAMONA TIRE AND SVC CEN 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY 0 000526 REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY 0 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH 002412 RICNARDS WATSON & GERSH 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 001365 RIVERSIDE CO ENVIRONMEN RIVERSIDE CO HEALTH SVC 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHN ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT MEDIC SQUAD #84 VEHICLE REPAIR 001-171-999-5214 DUPL BLUEPRINTS:PAO0-0257 001-161-999-5222 DUPL BLUEPRINTS:MURR CRK:99-15 210-165-707-5804 DUPL BLUEPRINTS:MURR CRK:99-15 210-165-707-5804 TCSD VEHICLE DETAILING TCSD VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 190-180-999-5214 190-180-999-5263 EFF. PRINCIPLES C.E.:DU:2/01 001-161-999-5261 ADMIN SEARCH WARR:TC/MS:5/18 001-161-999-5261 WEED ABATE/SPRAY:VAR CHANNELS 001-164~601-5401 NOV 2000 LEGAL SERVICES NOV 2000 LEGAL SERVICES NOV 2000 LEGAL SERVICES NOV 2000 LEGAL SERVICES NOV 2000 LEGAL SERVICES NOV 2000 LEGAL SERVICES NOV 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 280-199-999-5246 261-199-999-5246 001-1270 190-180-999-5246 210-165~631-5801 NOV PARKING CITATION ASSESSMNT 001-2260 NOV PARKING CITATION ASSESSMNT 001-2265 PLAN CK FEES:SR CTR EXPANSION 210-190-163-5802 EMS CERTIFICATION: C. AMESTOY 001-171-999-5261 DEC EMERG. RADIO RENTAL: P.D. 001-170-999-5238 004278 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIF 004278 GARNISH 003027 ROOFTEK 001309 RUSE, PHYLLIS 000385 SHELDON EXTINGUISHER CO 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 001-2140 RES IMPRV PRGM: JOSLYN 165-199-813-5804 COMPUTER LOAN PRGM:P. RUSE 001-1175 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS MAINT SERV 190-180-999-5214 JAN 2-17-214-0428 MEADOWS PKWY JAN 2-06-105-0654 VARIOUS MTRS JAN 2-10-331-1353 STN #84 JAN 2-18-363-1902 PAUSA RD JAN 2-22-057-2226 MARGARITA JAN 2-22-057-2234 MARGARITA JAR 2-19-538-2262 VARIOUS MTR$ JAN 2-20-798-3248 VAR METERS JAN 2-02-351-5281 CRC JAN 2~02-351-5281 CRC JAN 2-01-202-7330 VARIOUS MTRS JAN 2-01'202'7603 ARTERIAL STL 190'180'999-5319 190-180'999'5319 001-171'999'5240 190-180'999'5319 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5240 190'182'999-5240 190-186'999'5240 192'180'999-5319 190'180-999-5319 839.43 23.22 6.45 109.65 61.13 35.20 144.00 158.00 5,000.00 3,126.15 32,340.98 1,415.62 1,389.15 140.00 1,100.00 330.00 1,235.00 825.00 750.00 50.00 282.75 31.57 3,075.00 2,000.00 40.31 176.71 2,189.06 737.63 87.81 38.69 90.54 122.77 486.61 301.17 3,000.00 29,738.23 10,873.59 CHECK AMOUNT 839.43 139.32 96.33 302.00 5,000.00 39,841.90 2,060.00 750.00 50.00 282.75 31.57 3,075.00 2,000.00 40.31 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 66989 66990 66991 66992 66992 66992 66993 66994 66995 66996 66996 66996 66996 66997 66997 66997 66998 66998 66998 66998 66998 66998 66998 66998 66998 66998 66999 66999 66999 66999 66999 66999 66999 66999 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST COETR 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 000293 STADIUM PIZZA 003673 TECH 101 ARGUS IMC 004076 TEMECULA CREEK LEARNING 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURIT 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SEEURIT 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURIT 004274 TEMEODLA VALLEY SECURIT ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER JAN 2-05-791-8807 VARICUS MTRS 190-180-999-5319 JAN 095-167-7907-2 STN #84 001-171-999-5240 PEST CNTRL SVC-OVRLND/COMMERCE 001-1990 REFRESHMENTS:WREATH TRIM MTG REFRESHMENTS:PARADE PREP:12/01 REFRESHMENTS:PARADE PREP:12/01 MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 280-199-999~5362 190-180-999-5261 190-180-999-5261 320-199-999-5221 TEAM BUILDING-FINANCE 10/19/00 001-140-999-5261 SUNSHINE FUND 001-1270 VAR PARKS LOCKSMITH SVCS VAR PARKS LOCKSMITH SVCS VAR PARKS LOCKSHITH SVCS VAR PARKS LOCKSMITH SVCS 002578 TEMEKU HILLS REC LLC BALANCE 002578 TEMEKU HILLS REC LLC BALANCE 002578 TEMEKU HILLS EEC LLC BALANCE DUE:LEAGUE MTG:I/08/01 DUE:LEAGUE MTG:1/08/01 DUE:LEAGUE MTG:I/08/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S G M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMp) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMp) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIE 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIE 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2640 001-100-999-5260 001-110-999-5260 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 192-2080 193-2080 194-2080 280-2080 300-2080 320-2080 340-2080 001'2160 165'2160 190'2160 193'2160 280-2160 320~2160 330-2160 340-2160 ITEM AMOUNT 6,378.54 371.58 68.00 163.40 91.47 8.39 677.05 4,200.00 163.14 5.11 50.39 27.91 95.11 1,292.00 129.04 32.00 10,154.64 101.16 2,152.44 7.50 125.21 30.01 101.16 88.54 1,416.68 125.93 1,273.28 86.48 759.62 23.38 25.52 24.82 61.50 5.02 67000 01/18/01 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 127.05 67000 01/18/01 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165-2120 8.75 67000 01/18/01 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 27.60 67000 01/18/01 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 192-2120 .11 67000 01/18/01 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 193-2120 2.20 67000 01/18/01 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 194-2120 .49 CHECK AMOUNT 54,221.35 371.58 68.00 263.26 677.05 4,200.00 163.14 178.52 1,453.04 14,303.27 2,259.62 VOUCBRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10 01/18/01 11:22 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67O00 67000 67000 67000 67001 67001 67001 67002 67002 67003 67004 67004 67005 67005 67006 67006 67006 67007 67007 67007 67007 67007 67007 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 01/18/01 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. WHITAKER, PATRICIA 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC 002092 WINTER ADVERTISING AGEN 002092 WINTER ADVERTISING AGEN WOODSIDE HOMES-LEGACY WOODSIDE HOMES-LEGACY WOODSIDE HOMES-LEGACY 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILL1 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILL! 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI ITEM DESCRIPTION 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW DEC XXX-1408 P.D.SATELLITE STN JAN XXX-1941 PTA CD TTACSD DEC XXX-2670 911 POOL SITE JAN ACCESS-CRC OPEN LINE JAB ACCESS-RVSD CO OPEN LINE REFUND:EX~UR-TBE GETTY MUSEUM SEP ENG SVCS:PALA RD IMPRV SEP ENG SVCS:PALA RD IMPRV 4-COLOR AD FOR THE ROD RUN SALES TAX REFUND:OVRPMT TR.24185-2 PH 1 REFUND:OVRPMT TR.24185-3 PN 3 REFUND:OVRPMT-TR 24185-2 PH 2 NOV LEASE OF DC220 COPIER NOV HNTC/SUPPLIES DC220 COPIER NOV INTEREST OF DC220 COPIER NOV LEASE OF DCCSSO COPIER NOV INTEREST OF DCCSSO COPIER NOV DCCSSO DOPIER USAGE ACCOUNT NUMBER 280-2120 320-2120 330-2120 340-2120 001-170-999-5229 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 190-183-4986 210-165-668-5802 210-165-668-5802 001-111-999-5270 001-111-999-5270 192-180-4390 192-180-4390 192-180-4390 330-2800 330-199-999-5217 330-199-999-5391 330-2800 330-199-999-5391 330-199-999-5217 ITEM AMOUNT 2.50 5.00 5.00 .60 302.27 55.05 212.85 338.14 338.14 17.00 709.50 2,000.00 250.00 19.37 60.00 80.00 120.00 125.58 77.57 49.82 254.11 234.83 87.47 CHECK AMOUNT 179.30 570.17 676.28 17.00 2,709.50 269.37 260.00 829.38 TOTAL CHECKS 331,557.22 VOUCNRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT 50,584.95 3,807.30 29,123.35 3,836.56 2,850.00 6,720.89 829.32 560.16 15,766.40 2,252.94 3,248.25 1,032,016.69 TOTAL 1,151,596.81 VOUCHRE2 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 66884 01/19/01 67008 01/23/01 67009 01/23/01 872485 01/25/01 872485 01/25/01 872485 01/25/01 872485 01/25/01 872485 01/25/01 872485 01/25/01 872485 01/25/01 872485 01/25/01 946220 01/25/01 67012 01/25/01 67013 01/25/01 67014 01/25/01 67015 01/25/01 67016 01/25/01 67017 01/25/01 67018 01/25/01 67019 01/25/01 67019 01/25/01 67019 01/25/01 67019 01/25/01 67020 01/25/01 67021 01/25/01 67022 01/25/01 67022 01/25/01 67022 01/25/01 67023 01/25/01 67024 01/25/01 67025 01/25/01 67025 01/25/01 C~TY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 002601 J g F COMPANY RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 IHSTATAX (EDD) 000444 [NSTATAX (EDD) 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 [NBTATAX (EDD) 003228 U S BANK TRUST 001985 A E P (ASSOC OF ENVIRO 000434 ACCELA.COM AIRBORNE EXPRESS ITEM DESCRIPTION CFD 88-12 REIMBURSEMENT STORM WTR MGMT TRAINING:~/GB STORM WTR MGMT TRAINING:GA UI & ETT TAX 12/31/00 U! & ETT TAX 12/31/00 U! & ETT TAX 12/31/00 UI & ETT TAX 12/31/00 UI & ETT TAX 12/31/00 UI & ETT TAX 12/31/00 U[ & 8TT TAX 12/31/00 UI ETT TAX 12/31/00 OVERPMT NATIONAL RDA TABs DEBT SERVICE PMT CEQA WKSNP:3/8:RUBH/MCCOY/NAZE ANN'L PERMIT CF:RAFELI/KRUEGER EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIA TRFFC SIGNAL TIMING:WINCH RD 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC MEMSERSHIP:NNUTE NOLAND 131044 ANDERSON, JON REIMS:TRAINING CLASS:12/2-5/00 002696 ANIMAL AMBASSADORS, INC FAMILY FUN NGTN ENTERTAINMENT 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 01/06 ROSA TEMP HELP W/E 01/06 BRUNER TEMP HELP W/E 01/06 SIMPKINS TEMP HELP W/E 01/06 WAYMENT 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C MEMBERSHIP DUE: TOM COLE 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER 002541 BECKER~ WALTER KARL 002541 BECKER~ WALTER KARL 002541 BECKER, WALTER KARL BERESOVOY, LOUIS 004273 BLUES TESTAMENT, THE 004314 BREWER COTE SOUTHWEST 004314 BREWER COTE SOUTHWEST TCC REFRIGERATOR REPAIRS EQUIP CAGE HOLDER:PRESSURE WBH EMERG STORM CLEAN-UP:CITYWIDE INSTALL EQUIP CAGE ON PW TRUCK REFUND: EX-THE GETTY MUSEUM ENTERTAINMENT:SUMMER NIGHTS TRFFC SIGNAL LOOP SEALER:PW SALES TAX PAGE 1 ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 001-2030 408.84 408.84 001-165-999-5261 80.00 80.00 001-163'999'5261 40.00 40.00 001-2350 1,340.96 165-2350 121.94 190-2350 873.61 280-2350 40.63 320-2350 7.88 330-2350 44.73 340-2350 18.45 001-2350 233.51- 2,214.69 380'1040 1,032,016.69 1,032,016.69 001'161-999'5261 375.00 375.00 320-199-999-5258 700.00 700.00 320-199-999-5230 39.52 39.52 001-164-602-5250 3,750.00 3,750.00 001-161-999-5226 186.00 186.00 001-170-999-5261 247.00 247.00 190-183-999-5371 300.00 300.00 001-162-999-5118 107.04 001-162-999-5118 202.56 001-161-999-5118 391.95 001-161-999-5118 374.40 1,075.95 001-161-999-5214 43.00 43.00 190-184-999-5212 365.50 365.50 001-164-601-5215 735.00 001-164-601-5402 1,811.00 001-164-601-5215 775.00 3,321.00 190-183-4986 17.00 17.00 280-199-999-5362 400.00 400.00 001-164-602-5218 210.00 001-164-602-5218 15.75 225.75 VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67026 67027 67027 67028 67029 67030 67030 67031 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67032 67033 67034 67035 67035 67036 67036 67037 67037 67037 67037 67037 67037 67038 67038 67038 67038 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 004176 BROADWING 000901 000152 000152 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRAC BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRAC CELSOC CPRS CALIF PARKS & RECREATIO CALIF PARKS & RECREATIO CANYON REPROGRAPHICS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CIN6ULAR WIRELESS 003021 CIN6ULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003021 CINGULAR WIRELESS 003735 CINGULAR WIRELESS 001193 COMp U S A 004003 CRISP~ ALBERT K. 004003 CRISP, ALBERT K. 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELIN 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP ITEM DESCRIPTION LONG DISTANCE & INTERNET SVCS SUBSCRIPT:PAYROLL MGR LETTER PUB:APA BASIC GUIDE TO PAYROLL 2001 PLANNING PUBLICATIONS PKS OPERATION CF:WEDEKING:3/14 CPRS ANN'L CF:3/14-17/O1:STAFF CPRS ANN'L CF:3/14-17/Ol:BTAFF TRACT 24187 BLUEPRINT-inv34313 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/00/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PRONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09'1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVCS 12/09-1/08/01 CELL PHONE SVC$ MISC CELLULAR PHONE EQUIPMENT MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES JAN PLAN CHECK SVCS & REVIEW W/C PREMIUM FOR JAN 2000 FEB RENTAL SATELLITE OFFICE CAM CHGS FOR SATELLITE OFF[CE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 'FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: TCC SONIC BATTERY:BUTTERFIELD R.R. FREIGHT SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5208 001-140-999-5228 001-140-999-5228 001-161-999-5228 190-180-999-5258 190-180-999-5258 001-1170 001-163-999-5268 001-120-999-5208 001-140-999-5208 001-161-999-5208 001-162-999-5208 190-180-999-5208 280-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 001-163-999-5208 001-164-601-5208 001-164-602-5208 001-164-604-5208 001-165-999-5208 001-100-999-5208 001-110-999-5208 001-150-999-5208 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5211 001-163-999-5248 001-1182 001-170-999-5229 001-170-999-5229 001-164-601-5263 001-163-999-5263 001-165-999-5263 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 001-1990 190-184-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 2,408.47 218.20 171.27 439.20 50.00 1,864.00 55.00 92.88 115.03 55.50 500.22 762.70 599.20 61.95 196.01 227.74 204.81 107.78 53.89 458.84 342.42 239.83 53.88 11.55 229.98 220.00 .64- 1,000.00 255.00 274.33 40.39 55.71 54.66 137.99 68.06 246.69 109.71 12.00 8.51 CHECK AMOUNT 2,408.47 389.47 439.20 50.00 1,919.00 92.88 3,979.80 11.55 229.98 219.36 1,255.00 631.14 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67038 67039 67040 67041 67042 67043 67043 67043 67043 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSIRORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELS1NORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSIRORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSIRORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP ERICKBON, GEORGE 002708 ESCONDIDO COMMUNITY REA 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION 000478 FAST SIGNS 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS IRC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS IND ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY MALL 340-199-701-5212 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY NALL 340-199-701-5212 ELECTRIGAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 SALES TAX ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC SALES TAX 340-199-701-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 LGNT FIXTURES:PALA PEK SHELTER 190~180-999-5212 SALES TAX ELECT SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL SALES TAX ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC ELECT BALLASTS FOR CRC SALES TAX ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CRC SALES TAX STAGE LAMPS FOR CRC STAGE LAMPS IO00W FOR CRC SALES TAX ELECT SUPPLIES: CITY PARKS SALES TAX ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR CRC SALES TAX SENSOR LGHT SWITCHES: TCC SALES TAX MOTION/SOUND SENSOR:SE CTR SENSOR PLATES: SR CTR SALES TAX ELECT SUPPLIES FOR CITY PARKS SALES TAX 190-180-999-5212 340-199-701-5212 340-199-701-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-182-999-5212 190-184-999-5212 190-184-999-5212 190-181-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 190-181-999-5250 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 REFUND: EX-THE GETTY MUSEUM 190-183-4986 00-01 COMM SVC FUNDING AWARD 001-101-999-5267 DEC 2000 PLAN CHECK SERVICES 001-162-999-5248 HOLIDAY PARADE POSTERS 190-183-999-5370 EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-140-999-5230 001-110-999-5230 001-165-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 123.60 44.00 44.00 44.00 84.11 26.33 11.85 11.85 66.00 63.00 44.00 44.00 18.66 215.76 16.73 12.94 1.01 77.85 77.85 123.60 171.90 34.97 194.20 15.05 262.95 110.63 28.96 422.40 32.73 89.70 6.96 459.69 35.63 145.90 .98 11.38 90.30 7.00 34.00 5,000.00 3,455.50 43.10 22.72 17.28 27.66 15.56 3,649.38 34.00 5,000.00 3,455.50 43.10 83.22 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 4 VOUCHER/ CNECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER X-3083 NAGGAR:CF IN BOSTON/UCL 001-100-999-5258 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-0902 O~6RADY:ECO DEV MTG 001-111-999-5260 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER X-5288 JONES:COUNCIL MTG SUPPL 001-100-999-5260 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARO CENTER X-5288 JONES:MISC OFFICE SUPPL 001-120-999-5220 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER X-5288 JONES:NEW LAW CF-HTL 001-120-999-5261 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER X-5288 JORES:EARTHLINK 320-199-999-5211 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER X-5288 JONES:STAGECRAFT TOOLS 320-199-999-5221 67044 01/25/01 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER X-4117 HUGHES:COUNTRY GARDEN 001-164-604-5260 67045 01/25/01 001989 FOX NETWORK SYSTEMS INC MISC COMPUTER HARDWARE 320-199-999-5242 ITEM AMOUNT 1,356.60 41.33 144.29 4.30 142.61 285.97 138.58 79.88 460.19 CHECK AMOUNT 2,193.56 460.19 67046 01/25/01 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS PROF ASSIST SEM:3/12:ROBINSON 190-180-999-5261 89.00 89.00 67047 01/25/01 000173 GENERAL BINDING CORPORA LAMINATOR MNTC CONTRACT 330-199-999-5217 186.00 186.00 67048 01/25/01 002528 GLASS BLASTERS CITY MUGS FOR NEW HIRES 001-150-999-5265 16.13 16.13 67049 01/25/01 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:POLICE 001-170-999-5229 67049 01/25/01 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:POLICE 001-170-999-5229 67049 01/25/01 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FIRE 001-171-999-5220 67050 01/25/01 GREER~ SHARON & WILLIAM FILE# 00-319 REL OF ALL CLAIMS 300-199-999-5207 67051 01/25/01 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE RES IMPR PRGM:MESSER,NED/ELLEN 165-199-813-5804 106.44 58.16 580.61 560.16 627.22 745.21 560.16 627.22 67052 01/25/01 0015~ INLAND EMPIRE TOURISM C BROCHURE DISTRIGUTION:O.C.SNOW 001-111-999-5270 67053 01/25/01 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 190-186-999-5250 67054 01/25/01 004079 JENKENS& GILCHRIST DEC LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5247 67055 01/25/01 KERESTES-RAK, TRACY RE-ISSUE SECURITY DEPST REFUND 190-2900 67056 01/25/01 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIAT DEC FINANCIAL ANALYSIS SVC 165-199-999-5250 67057 01/25/01 002023 KING~ WENDE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 67057 01/25/01 002023 KING, WENDE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 67057 01/25/01 002023 KING, WENDE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 67057 01/25/01 002023 KING, WENDE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999~5330 67058 01/25/01 000206 KINKOS INC STATIONERY PAPER/M[SC SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220 67059 01/25/01 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS RABBIT TOOL SY:PARAMEDIC SQUAD 001-171-999-5311 67059 01/25/01 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS FREIGHT 001-171-999-5311 67059 01/25/01 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS SALES TAX 001-171-999-5311 67060 01/25/01 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE NP PRINTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 67060 01/25/01 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE HP PRINTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 67061 01/25/01 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR FORWARD MONIES:LEAF CIT# 6454 001-161-4255 50.00 357.44 456.00 100.00 3,010.00 25.60 76.80 91.20 153.60 36.64 1,380.00 15.97 103.50 96.75 190.21 36.00 50.00 357.44 456.00 100.00 3,010.00 347.20 36.64 1;499.47 286.96 36.00 VOUCNRE2 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/ CNECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 67062 01/25/01 67063 01/25/01 67064 01/25/01 67065 01/25/01 67066 01/25/01 67067 01/25/01 67060 01/25/01 67069 01/25/01 67070 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67071 01/25/01 67072 01/25/01 67072 01/25/01 67072 01/25/01 67073 01/25/01 67073 01/25/01 6707'~ 01/25/01 67074 01/25/01 67075 01/25/01 67076 01/25/01 67077 01/25/01 67078 01/25/01 67079 01/25/01 67080 01/25/01 67080 01/25/01 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME LEWELLYN TECHNOLOGY, IN 003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI LOS ANGELES POWER ASSOC LUNN, CARLTON LUNN~ STELLA MAEARRO, KRISTINA 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS MAY, CAROL 003935 MELAD & ASSOCIATES 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING MS TEMECULA II, LLC 002033 NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTI NEVAREZ, LESLIE NORDEN, BARBARA 004191 NORTH COUNTY TIMES-PMT 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE ITEM DESCRIPTION A/C EPA CERT SEM:WEDEKING:3/5 DEC SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT NATURAL GAS & ELECT SEM:ADAMS REFUND: EX-TNE GETTY MUSEUM REFUND: EX-THE GETTY MUSEUM REFUND:EXERCISE-PRENATAL YOGA PW MISC SIGN SUPPLIES REFUND:EXDUR'GEFTY NUSEUM DEC 2000 TEMP BLDG INSPECT SVC 10,000 WINDOW ENVELOPES:FIN. LETTERHEAD/STATIONERY FOR RDA LETTERHEAD/STATIONERY FOR RDA BUSINESS CARDS: F. HOGAN SALES TAX BUSINESS CARDS: J. YORKE SALES TAX BUSINESS CARDS: P. BROWN SALES TAX CREDIT: SALES TAX CRC WATER SLIDE ALUMINUM STEPS FREIGNT SALES TAX BLADING DIRT RDS:VARIOUS LOC, BLADING DIRT RDS:VARIOUS LOC. REPAIR CONCRETE-MURRFIELD CHNL RFND:OVRPMT PLAN FEES:PAO00513 MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE BASIC ELEC TRAINING:TCSD MAINT HALLOWEEN GRAB BAGS-OLD TOWN REFUND:EXERCISE-PRENATAL YOGA REFUND:EXERCISE-BELLY DANCING ANN'L SUBSCRIPTION:#493062:P.D CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT CITY VENICLE REPAIRS & MA[NT ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-180-999-5261 001-101-999-5285 001-110-999-5261 190-183-4986 190-183-4986 190-183-4982 001-164-601-5244 190-183-4986 001-162-999-5110 001-140-999-5222 280-199-999-5222 165-199-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 190-100-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 190-186-999-5416 190-186-999-5416 190-186-999-5416 195-180-999-5402 195-180-999-5402 001-164-601-5401 001-2650 190-180-999-5261 280-199-999-5362 190-183-4982 190-183-4982 001-1990 001-164-601-5214 001-164-601-5214 ITEM AMOUNT 395.00 1,116.99 195.00 102.00 17.00 48.00 2,179.56 17.00 2,941.73 487.53 32.04 32.03 38.25 2.87 38.25 2.87 102.50 7.69 1.14- 1,607.00 254.00 124.56 2~010.00 840.00 2,400.00 1,549.56 640.00 279.90 48.00 30.00 94.80 133.15 351.98 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 395.00 1,116.99 195.00 102.00 17.00 48.00 2,179.56 17.00 2,941.73 742.89 1,985.56 5,250.00 1,549.56 640.00 279.90 48.00 30.00 94.80 VOUCNRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 6 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER ITEM CHECK AMOUNT AMOUNT 67080 01/25/01 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-164-601-5214 114.28 67080 01/25/01 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-163-999-5214 31.19 630.60 67081 01/25/01 002652 OSCARS RESTAURANT 67081 01/25/01 002652 OSCARS RESTAURANT REFRESHMENTS:FBI TRAINING MTG 001-110-999-5260 ADD~L CHARGES:FBI TRAIHIHG MTG 001-110-999-5260 250.00 77.19 327.19 67082 01/25/01 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES 001-171-999-5311 110.90 110.90 67083 01/25/01 003218 PELA NOV/DEC INSPECT SVCS:PALA BRDG 210-165-631-5804 645.00 645.00 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5229 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5221 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5229 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-1270 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5214 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5230 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5222 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5350 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CAEN REIMBURSEMENT 190-1990 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-185-999-5301 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMGURSEMENT 001-161-999-5230 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMHURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 165-199-999-5220 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-181-999-5301 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5265 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5370 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-~99-5221 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 6708/* 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5250 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-101-999-5280 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5370 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5261 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 6708/* 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-101-999-5280 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5370 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5263 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5350 67084 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5222 6708/* 01/25/01 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5222 12.49 36.62 17.23 32.04 4.30 5.40 13.36 24.30 7.70 18.65 4.99 1.68 E8.03 8.91 21.23 16.11 13.00 15.49 45.26 30.00 40.00 5.38 45.67 39.94 40.80 2.69 50.00 36.98 8.51 12.00 35.38 7.99 20.99 50.00 6.34 11.09 770.55 67086 01/25/01 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVE 001-161-999-5230 67086 01/25/01 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVE 001-120-999-5230 67086 01/25/01 000253 POSTMASTER EXPRESS MAIL & POSTAL SERVE 001-110-999-5230 56.15 39.75 15.75 111.65 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMEEULA PAGE 7 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67087 67088 67089 67090 67091 67091 67092 67092 67092 67092 67093 67094 67094 67095 67096 67097 67097 67097 67097 67097 67097 67098 67098 67098 67098 67098 67098 67098 67099 67099 67099 67099 67099 67099 67099 67100 67101 CHECK DATE 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 01/25/01 VENDOR NUMBER 002185 001416 VENDOR NAME POSTMASTER - TEMECULA QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS IN QUINATA, EARL 002612 RADIO SHACK INC 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & RE 001942 S C SIGNS 001942 S C SIGNS 003389 SAN DIEGO CONVENTION SHIHDELAR, JOHN 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 001212 SO CALIF C~AS COMPANY 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 000519 SO(JTH COUNTY PEST CONTR 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C SULLIVAN BAY COMPANY ITEM DESCRIPTION ANNUAL P.O. BOX FEE DUES:C.H. VETERANS PARK MONUMENT SIGN REIMB:POP 2000 CF:12/02-05/00 MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES ADD'L BLUEPRINTS:IST ST BRIDGE BLUEPRINTS/SUPPLIES:MURR CREEK VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS VARIOUS WATER METERS PW NOTICE OF COMPLETION COPIES OCT-NOV VAR PUBLIC NTC SIGNS SEPT 2000 VAR.PUBLIC NTC SIGNS L.A.TIMES TRVL SHOW BOOTH:3/04 REFUND:EXCUR-GETTY MUSEUM JAN 2-21-518-0340 HWY 79 JAN 2-00-597-5059 VARIOUS MTRS JAN 2-21-560-5874 MARGARITA JAN 2-07-626-6065 R.VISTA SPR DEC 2-20-140-9299 WINCH/YNEZ BEC 2-19-999-9442 VARIOUS MTRS JAN VARIOUS GAS METERS JAN VARIOUS GAS METERS JAN VARIOUS GAS METERS JAN VARIOUS GAS METERS JAN VARIOUS GAS METERS JAN VARIOUS GAS METERS JAN VARIOUS GAS METERS WEDDING CHAPEL PEST CONTROL SV CITY HALL PEST CONTROL SVCS CRC PEST CONTROL SVCS TCC PEST CONTROL SERVICES MAINT FAC PEST CONTROL SVCS MUSEUM PEST CONTROL SVCS SR CTR PEST CONTROL SVCS CITY HALL CARPET CLEANING ACCOUNT NUMBER 330-199'999'5230 190-180-999-5244 001-170-999-5261 320-199-999-5221 280-199-807'5804 210-165'707'5804 190-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5240 193-180-999-5240 001-163'999'5250 001-120'999'5244 001-120-999-5244 001-111-999-5270 190'183'4986 190-180-999-5319 190-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5319 193-180-999-5240 190-180-999-5319 190'180-999-5319 190'180-999-5240 190-181-999-5240 190-182-999-5240 190-186-999-5240 190-184-999-5240 190-185-999-5240 340'199-702-5240 190'185-999-5250 340'199'701-5250 190-182-999-5250 190-184-999-5250 340-199-702-5250 190'185-999'5250 190'181-999-5250 340-199-701-5250 REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT LD99-204GR 001'2670 ITEM AMOUNT 550.00 2,520.88 214.00 6.43 14.80 105.99 2,092.60 1,080.10 1,166.01 2,743.50 3.00 65.00 325.00 775.00 34.00 201.22 4,346.19 44.99 12.96 533.60 1,646.66 43.07 186.93 971.88 2,000.00 196.28 198.36 299.40 32.00 56.00 90.00 36.00 40.00 42.00 29.00 1,650.00 995.00 CHECK AMOUNT 550.00 2,520.88 214.00 6.43 120.79 7,082.21 3.00 390.00 775.00 34.00 6,785.62 3,895.92 325.00 1,650.00 995.00 VOUCHRE2 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 67102 01/25/01 67102 01/25/01 67103 01/25/01 67104 01/25/01 67104 01/25/01 67105 01/25/01 67106 01/25/01 67107 01/25/01 67107 01/25/01 67107 01/25/01 67107 01/25/01 67107 01/25/01 67108 01/25/01 67109 01/25/01 67109 01/25/01 67109 01/25/01 67109 01/25/01 67110 01/25/01 67111 01/25/01 67112 01/25/01 67113 01/25/01 67114 01/25/01 67114 01/25/01 67114 01/25/01 67114 01/25/01 67115 01/25/01 67116 01/25/01 67116 01/25/01 67117 01/25/01 67118 01/25/01 67119 01/25/01 67119 01/25/01 67119 01/25/01 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 000574 SUPERTONER 000574 SUPERTONER 003449 T H E SOILS COMPANY 003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 003665 CiTY OF TEMEGULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION TONER SUPPLIES SALES TAX DEC PROF SVCS:O.T.PRK LOT:9816 DEC CONSULTING SVC:PALA BRIDGE DEC PROF SVCS:PALA BRIDGE:9715 TELEGLOBE BUSINESS SOLU DEC LONG DISTANCE PHONE SVCS TEMECULA ELECTRICAL SUP MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:TCSD 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY 3 GAVELS:MAYOR/CSD PRES/RDA CH 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY NAMETAGS FOR YORKE/HOGAN 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY NAMETAG FOR J. COMERCHERO 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY NAMETAG FOR M. NORRIS 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY NAMEPLATES FOR D. HAZEN 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURIT VAR PARKS LOCKSMITH SERVICES 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED DEC VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED DEC VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED DEC VEHICLE FUEL USAGE 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED DEC VEBICLE FUEL USAGE 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY 5/10 YR SVC AWARDS BROCHURES THORSON, CAMERONE REFUND:MUSIC FOR TODDLERS 001483 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES DEC CONSULTING SVCS:MURR CREEK 002065 UNISOURCE 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA VOLLMUTH, MARY PAPER SUPPLIES FOR COPY CENTER JAN XXX-O073 GENERAL USAGE JAN XXX-O074 GENERAL USAGE JAN XXX~3564 ALARM JAN XXX-5072 GENERAL USAGE REFUND:EXCUR-GETTY MUSEUM 003866 VORTEX DATA SYSTEMS [NC WIN2000 ESSENTIALS:TH/KK:I/08 003866 VORTEX DATA SYSTEMS INC CREDIT:DID NOT ATTEND:KRUEGER 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING SVCS 000339 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY DEC LEGAL PURLICATIONS-C.H. 004268 WESTERN FIRE COMPANY C.N. FIRE SPRINKLER SYS CERT. 004268 WESTERN FIRE COMPANY C.H. FIRE SPRINKLER SYS PARTS 004268 WESTERN FIRE COMPANY SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5221 320-199-999-5221 210-165-828-5804 210-165-631~5801 210-165-631-5801 320-199-999-5208 190-180-999-5212 001-100-999-5222 190-180-999-5222 001-100-999-5222 001-171-999-5222 001-161-999-5222 190-180-999-5212 001-1~-601-5263 001-162-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 340-199-701~5263 001-150-999-5265 190-183-4982 210-165-707-5801 330-199-999-5220 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 190-183-4986 320-199-999-5261 320-199-999-5261 001-164-601-5402 001-120-999-5228 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 ITEM AMOUNT 148.00 11.47 1,957.50 122.40 2,900.00 1,595.93 26.74 93.17 13.98 6.99 6.99 13.16 39.29 489.36 237.46 360.93 123.12 63.78 42.00 990.00 1,472.21 1,529.94 259.34 56.05 6,269.13 34.00 2,250.00 1,125.00- 3,790.40 623.34 450.00 55.80 4.32 PAGE 8 CBECK AMOUNT 159.47 1~957.50 3,022.40 1,595.93 26.74 134.29 39.29 1,210.87 63.78 42.00 990.00 1,472.21 8~114.46 34.00 1,125.00 3,790.40 623.34 510.12 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9 01/25/01 13:09 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 67120 01/25/01 67120 01/25/01 67120 01/25/01 67120 01/25/01 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 003607 XPECT FIRST AID 003607 XPECT FIRST AID 003607 XPECT FIRST AID 003607 XPECT FIRST AID ITEM DESCRIPTION CRC FIRST AID SUPPLIES PW MNTC CRW FIRST AID SUPPLIES C.H. FIRST AID KIT SUPPLIES SR CTR FIRST AID SUPPLIES TOTAL CHECKS ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-182-999-5301 001-164-601-5218 340-199-701-5250 190-181-999-5301 ITEM AMOUNT 113.54 29.65 171.17 39.75 CHECK AMOUNT 354.11 1,151,596.81 VOUCNRE2 02/01/01 12:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 16 FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 165 RDA DEW LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ' CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 310 VEHICLES FUND 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES AMOUNT 296,476.68 9,499.94 46,242.10 46.21 3,886.84 408.10 170,816.92 558,293.69 415.38 23,320.68 10,129.20 2,031.1G 5,167.97 TOTAL 1,126,734.81 VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA 02/01/01 12:18 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 1 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 51629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 51629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 51629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS 31629 02/01/01 000246 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 001-2390 26,669.25 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 165-2390 651.49 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 190-2390 4,800.01 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 192-2390 11.61 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 193-2390 471.19 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 194-2390 98.47 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 280-2390 282.59 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 300-2390 127.82 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 320-2130 26.51 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 320-2390 936.18 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 330-2390 206.10 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS RET 340-2590 588.78 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 001-2130 140.96 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2590 96.59 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 1.87 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 18.89 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390 .05 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 2.00 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 194-2390 .36 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 .92 EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 .46 EMPLOYEESt RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 3.72 EMPLOYEESt RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 1.39 EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 2.65 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA 001-2090 2,942.42 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA 165-2090 254.63 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA 190-2090 1,142.00 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA 280-2090 84.87 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA 330-2090 96.97 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA 340-2090 244.06 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 BLSHIELD 001-2090 1~594.12 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 BLSHIELD 190-2090 468.53 HEALTH IHSUR. PRE 000245 CIGNA 001-2090 890.72 HEALTH IHSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 001-2090 4,804.09 NEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 190-2090 1,398.91 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 193-2090 98.63 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 194-2090 29.59 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 HELTHNET 340-2090 768.95 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 KAISER 001-2090 2,120.00 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACCARE 001-2090 4,149.17 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACCARE 190-2090 769.84 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACCARE 193-2090 244.62 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PACCARE 340-2090 144.45 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PC 001-2090 738.00 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS CHO 001-2090 4,056.44 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS DED 001-2090 1,115.63 qEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 PERS-ADM 001-2090 153.14 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 UNI 001-2090 2,204.14 HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 UNI 190-2090 166.98 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01Z01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PER! 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 31724 02/01/01 000245 PERS 35,139.94 30,680.90 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 VOUCHER/ CHECK HUMBER 67134 67135 67136 67136 12:18 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 01/31/01 01/31/01 01/31/01 01/31/01 003487 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WAR CLEAR 003577 CALIF STATE BOARD OF EQ 003577 CALIF STATE BOARD OF EQ CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION HUMBER FY 00-01 COMM SVC FUNDING AWRD 001-101-999-5267 CHOICE AWARDS:2/2:JC,RR,JS,MN 001-100-999-5260 REMIT YR 2000 SALES/USE TAX 001-2135 REMIT YR 2000 SALES/USE TAX 001-2175 ITEM AMOUNT 2,000.00 200.00 323.80 .20 951134 02/01/01 000283 IBSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 25,126.96 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 463.39 951134 02/01/01 000283 INBTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 5,118.04 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 192-2070 15.84 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 397.97 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 125.99 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 177.94 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 74.25 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 1,109.88 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 249.20 951134 02/01/01 000283 [NBTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 559.90 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 6,177.99 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 151.04 951134 02/01/01 000283 IHSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 1,382.74 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 192-2070 2.62 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 113.73 951134 02/01/01 000283 IBSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 21.73 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 69.01 951134 02/01/01 000283 INBTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 29.24 951134 02/01/01 000283 IHSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 265.84 951134 02/01/01 000283 IHSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 65.90 951134 02/01/01 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 155.01 951160 02/01/01 000444 [BSTATAX (EDD) 000444 951160 02/01/01 000444 [NBTATAX (EDD) 000444 BDI 951160 02/01/01 000444 INBTATAX (EDD) 000444 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 951160 02/01/01 000444 IHSTATAX (EDD) 000444 951160 02/01/01 000444 IHSTATAX (EDD) 000444 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 BDI 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 IBSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 D2/01/01 000444 IBBTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 INBTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 IHSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 00D444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 951160 02/01/01 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 193-2070 280-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 001-2070 165-2070 190-2070 192-2070 193-2070 194-2070 280-2070 300-2070 320-2070 330-2070 340-2070 110.53 3.67 92.50 2.66 .77 11.34 4.60 .60 6,725.30 131.14 1,164.38 4.68 83.63 36.05 53.22 15.32 256.55 62.45 121.49 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 2,000.00 200.00 324.00 41,854.21 8,880.88 000 00/00/00 000245 PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PRE 000245 AETNA 001-2090 258.61 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 3 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0OO 0O0 000 0OO 000 000 000 000 000 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67139 67140 67141 67141 67141 67141 67141 67141 67141 67141 67142 67143 67144 67145 CHECK DATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00400/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 VENDOR NUMBER 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 000245 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 003552 VENDOR NAME PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS BEALTH IMBUE. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INSUR. PRE PERS HEALTH INBUR. PRE PERB HEALTH INSUR. PRE A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC A LAC 000745 A T & T WIRELESS SERVIC 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 000116 A V P VISION PLANS 003304 ADAMS ADVERTISING INC 004054 ADKISON ENGINEERS INC 001538 ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIA 002877 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES ITEM DESCRIPTION 000245 AETNA 000245 AETNA 000245 AETNA 000245 AETNA 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 BLSHIELD 000245 CIGNA 000245 BELTBHET 000245 BELTHHET 000245 HELTHHET 000245 KAISER 000245 PACCARE 000245 PACCARE 000245 PACCARE 000245 PERS CRO 000245 PERS REV 003552 CANCER 003552 CANCER 003552 CANCER 003552 CANCER 003552 CANCER 003552 EXP PROT 003552 EXP PROT 003552 EXP PROT 003552 HOSP lC 003552 STD 003552 STD 003552 STD 003552 STD 003552 STD CELLULAR PHONE SVCS:POLICE DPT 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP 000116 AVP UPDATE BILLBOARD FOR ROD RUN RESTAKE CURB/CATCH BASINS:IST SIGNAL TIMING IMPR:CITYWIDE MUSEUM EXCURSION BUS TO LACMA ACCOUNT NUMBER 165-2090 190-2090 280-2090 340-2090 001-2090 190-2090 001-2090 001-2090 190-2090 340-2090 001-2090 001-2090 190-2090 340-2090 001-2090 001-2090 001-2330 190-2330 193-2330 194-2330 340-2330 001-2330 190-2330 320-2330 001-2330 001-2330 190-2330 193-2330 194-2330 340-2330 001-170-999-5208 001-2310 165-2310 190-2310 193-2310 194-2310 280-2310 330-2310 340-2310 280-199-999-5362 280-199-807-5804 001-164-602-5412 190-183-999-5350 ITEM AMOUNT 123.68 119.00 41.22 8.14 35.95 54.51 35.78 143.43 31.23 .37 23,43 119.46 5.42 2.32 129.56 1,132.11- 377.90 19.12- 11.95 4.78 2.39 175.00 55.80 27.90 17.50 616.80 155.20 9.60 3.20 20.80 214.05 729.49 17.60 89.03 5,58 1.68 5.86 5.58 42.23 450.00 990.00 1,070.00 421.05 CHECK AMOUNT .00 1,459.70 214.85 897.05 450.00 990.00 1,070.00 421.05 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIOOS PAGE 4 VOUCBER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 67146 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67147 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67140 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67148 67149 67149 67149 67149 67150 67151 67152 67153 67154 67154 67154 67154 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 003717 AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSE 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE~ INC. 000101 APPLE ONE~ INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE~ INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. 000101 APPLE ONE~ INC. 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY 001445 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF TE 003485 AUDIO VIDEO SUPPLY INC 004206 BANUELOS, TERESA 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY CO#1:SLURRY SEAL R.HIGHLAND DR 001'164-601-5402 CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PC CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PC CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-P£ CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PC CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PC CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PD CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PD CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PD CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PD CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PD CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PD CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-P CITY LIMITS BLOOD DRAWS-PD /CHP 001-170-999-5328 /CHP 001-170-999-5328 fCHP 001-170-999-5328 (CNP 001-170-999-5328 (CNP 001-170-999-5328 FCNP 001-170-999-5328 FCNP 001-170-999-5328 (CNP 001-170-999-5328 FCNP 001-170-999-5328 FCHP 001-170-999-5328 FCHP 001-170-999-5328 fCHP 001-170-999-5328 fCHP 001-170-999-5328 TEMP HELP W/E 12/16 BRUNER TEMP HELP W/E 12/16 ROSA TEMP HELP W/E 12/16 SIMPKINS TEMP HELP W/E 12/16 WAYMENT TEMP HELP W/E 12/16 FIDERO TEMP HELP W/E 12/16 REID TEMP HELP W/E 12/16 REID TEMP HELP W/E 12/30 ROSA TEMP HELP W/E 12/30 ROSA TEMP HELP W/E 12/30 BRUNEH TEMP HELP W/E 12/23 REID TEMP HELP W/E 12/30 REID TEMP HELP W/E 12/30 REID TEMP HELP W/E 12/30 BIMPKINS TEMP HELP W/E 01/13 SIMPKINS TEMP HELP W/E 01/13 BRUNER TEMP HELP W/E 01/13 ROSA 001-162-999-511B 001-162-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 190-180-999-5118 001-110-999-5118 001-110-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-120-999-5118 165-199-999-5118 165-199-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 001-162-999-5118 BOTTLED WTR SVC: MNTC FAC BOTTLED WTR SVCS: CRC BOTTLED WTR SVCS:CITY HALL BOTTLED WTR SVCS= CITY HALL 340-199-702-5250 190-182-999-5250 340-199-701-5250 340-199-701-5250 TEAM PACE RESALE MERCHANDISE 001-1665 00-01 COME SVC FUNDING AWARD 001-101-999-5267 AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5210 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 WORKERS' COMP. FOR DEC 2000 001-2370 WORKERS' COMP. FOR DEC 2000 165-2370 WORKERS' COMP. FOR DEC 2000 190-2370 WORKERS' COMP. FOR DEC 2000 192-2370 4,247.51 273.00 63.00 294.00 146.00 63.00 315.00 21.00 251.00 398.00 21.00 230.00 42.00 377.00 202.56 120.42 468.00 374.40 74.75 37.50 149.70 39.74 67.30 189.90 78.00 66.00 199.20 374.40 280.80 202.56 214.08 85.36 51.44 118.65 91.23 668.00 5,000.00 51.40 170.00 3,223.39 63.38 1,124.87 .44 4,247.51 2,494.00 3,139.31 346.68 668.00 5,000.00 51.40 170.00 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 VOUCNER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 67154 02/01/01 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 67154 02/01/01 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 67154 02/01/01 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 67154 02/01/01 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 67154 02/01/01 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 67154 02/01/01 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 67154 02/01/01 004037 BARNEY & BARNEY 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67155 02/01/01 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 67156 02/01/01 BIRKLEY, LAUREL 67157 02/01/01 000586 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY 67158 02/01/01 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 67159 02/01/01 004176 BROADWING 67160 02/01/01 003582 BROWN JR., WILLIAM E. 67161 02/01/01 BUCKLES, SCOTT CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION WORKERS' COMP. FOR DEC 2000 WORKERS' COMP. FOR DEC 2000 WORKERS~ COMP. FOR DEC 2000 WORKERS' COMP. FOR DEC 2000 WORKERS~ COMP. FOR DEC 2000 WORKERS~ COMP. FOR DEC 2000 WORKERS~ COMP. FOR DEC 2000 LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CHP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CHP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CHP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CHP LAB DRUG TEBTING:POLICE/CNP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CHP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CNP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLIOE/CHP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CHP LAB DRUG TESTING:POLICE/CHP REFUND:EXERCISE-KUNDALINI YOGA CODIFICATION OF HUN CODE BOOKS ACCOUNT NUMBER 193-2370 194-2370 280-2370 300-2370 320-2370 330-2370 340-2370 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 001-170-999-5328 190-183-4982 001-120-999-5250 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 LONG DISTANCE & INTERNET SVCS EE MILEAGE REIMB:PW TRFFC TEC 320-199-999-5208 001-164-602-5262 RE-ISSUE:GRAD DEPST LD98-145GR 001-2670 ITEM AMOUNT 47.08 8.38 23.09 5.03 57.74 10.78 146.58 1,130.00 270.80 1,227.10 281.30 1,221.00 505.90 899.70 223.40 1,097.70 192.20 27.00 4,167.01 100.00 1,231.94 76.59 500.00 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 001-2380 1,622.23 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 165-2380 39.10 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 190-2380 296.48 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 192-2380 .71 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 193-2380 29.82 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 194-2380 6.08 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 280-2380 17.29 67162 02/01/01 003553 c I G N A 003553 LTD 300-2380 7.99 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 320-2380 66.99 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 330-2380 13.45 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 LTD 340-2380 37.67 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STD 001-2500 2,264.34 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G H A 003553 BTD 165-2500 54.57 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STD 190-2500 413.84 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STD 192-2500 .99 67162 02/01/01 003553 C ! G N A 003553 STD 193-2500 41.61 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STD 194-2500 8.49 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 BTD 280-2500 24.15 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STO 300-2500 11.15 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STG 320-2500 93.49 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 4,710.76 7,049.10 27.00 4,167.01 100.00 1,231.94 76.59 500.00 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 6 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STD 330-2500 18.78 67162 02/01/01 003553 C I G N A 003553 STD 340-2500 52.60 67164 02/01/01 67165 02/01/01 67166 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67167 02/01/01 67168 02/01/01 67169 02/01/01 67170 02/01/01 67170 02/01/01 CALIF PLANNING FOUNDATI 001610 CALTRANS 001655 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY MITIGATION MONITOR:HOGAN:2/2 PRMT:O899-6DP-0966:I-15 @WINC WELDING SUPPLIES:PW MNTC CREW 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE C 003554 LIFE INS 004093 CARDIO CARE PLUS CARTER, JAMES 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-161-999-5261 210-165-615-5802 001-164-601-5218 001~2360 165-2360 190-2360 192-2360 193-2360 194-2360 280-2360 300-2360 320-2360 330-2360 340-2360 190-183-999-5330 190-2900 001-110-999-5263 001-170-999-5262 75.00 2,782.50 28.65 645.13 13.01 131.96 .33 13.98 2.59 6.49 3.24 26.00 9.75 18.52 341.60 100.00 72.18 78.88 5,121.82 75.00 2,782.50 28.65 871.00 341.60 100.00 151.06 67171 02/01/01 67172 02/01/01 67172 02/01/01 67172 02/01/01 67173 02/01/01 67173 02/01/01 67173 02/01/01 67174 02/01/bl 67174 02/01/01 67174 02/01/01 67174 02/01/01 67174 02/01/01 67174 02/01/01 67175 02/01/01 67175 02/01/01 004203 CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIO 004203 AR CHILD 003735 CINGULAR WIRELESS (EQUI 003735 ClNGULAR WIRELESS (EQUI 003}~5 CINGULAR WIRELESS (EQU[ HOKIA 5190 PCS PHONE DISCOUNT ON NOKIA 5190 PHONE SALES TAX 002989 CLEAR IMAGE WINDOW CLEA 002989 CLEAR IMAGE WINDOW CLEA 002989 CLEAR IMAGE WINDOW CLEA EXTERIOR WINDOWS CLEANING:C.H. CANOPY GLASS CLEANING:C.HALL T.MUSEUM WINDOWS CLEANING 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 CHC 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 CHC 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 CHE 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 CHE 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 CHC 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARIT 004405 CNC COMPUMASTER COMPUMASTER MICROSOFT ACCESS WKSHP:MCBRIDE MICROSOFT ACCESS WRKSHP:OBMANN 190-2140 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 320-199-999-5242 340-199-701-5212 340-199-701-5250 190-185-999-5250 001-2120 190-2120 193-2120 194-2120 330-2120 340-2120 001-171-999-5261 001-171-999-5261 118.45 6,407.00 6,407.00- 496.54 120.00 45.00 150.00 123.50 5.60 .60 .20 5.50 .60 399.00 399.00 118.45 496.54 315.00 136.00 798.00 67176 02/01/01 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC ANGEL MIX FOR SPRT PRK PRKLOT 190-180-999-5212 1,350.00 67176 02/01/01 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC SALES TAX 190-180-999-5212 101.25 67176 02/01/01 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC ANGEL MIX FOR SPRTS PRK PRKLOT 190-180-999-5212 900.00 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 7 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67176 67176 67176 67176 67176 67176 67177 67178 67179 67180 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC 000864 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE 003182 CUB SCOUT PACK # 338 002900 DANIEL MANN JOHNSON DAVCON DEVELOPMENT ITEM ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NUMBER SALES TAX ANGEL MIX FOR SPRT PRK PRKLOT SALES TAX ANGEL MIX FOR SPRT PRK PRKLOT MOUND CLAY FOR PEK FIELDS SALES TAX EE COMPUTER PRGM:W.MCKEON 001-1175 00-01COMM SVC FUNDING AWARD AUG-SEP DESIGN SVC:PALA RD II RE-ISSUE:GRAD DEPST LD98-145GR 001'2670 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190'180'999-5212 190'180-999-5212 190-180'999'5212 190'180'999'5212 001-101-999-5267 210-165-668-5802 ITEM AMOUNT 67.50 2,250.00 168.75 1,350.00 475.00 136.88 1,853.20 2,339.58 495.00 CHECK AMOUNT 6,799.38 1,853.20 1,000.00 2,339.58 495.00 67181 67182 67183 67184 67185 67186 67186 67186 67186 67186 67186 67186 67186 67186 67187 67187 67188 67188 67188 67189 67189 67189 67189 67190 67191 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 003681 DAVIDSON & ALLEN, ARCHI 004410 DAVIS, MARY A. 003006 DEWITT CUSTOM PAINTING 002954 DIAMOND GARAGE 001945 E A MENDOZA CONTRACTING 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 001380 E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT SERVIC E S EMPLOYMENT BERVIC EDCSWRC EDCSWRC 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 004130 ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUP 000517 ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA 000517 ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA 000517 ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA 000517 ENTENMANN ROVIN & COMPA 001165 ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATI 002060 EUROPEAN DELI & CATERIN JAN DESIGN SVC:SR CENTER FEB MGMT SVCS:TRADING POST RES IMPRV PRGM:MARTIN,TAWNY RES IMPR PRGM:MESSER,NED/ELLEN 210-190-163-5802 210-190-165-5801 165-199-813-5804 165-199-813-5804 REL RETENTION:RC PK:PWO0-05CSD 210-2035 TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 HUSH TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 EBON TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 EBON TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 HANSEN TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 BANBEN TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 HANSEN TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 HANBEN TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 BROWN TEMP HELP W/E 01/12 RUDELL ECON DEV CF:GY,JO,AA:2/15/01 ECON DEV CF:MEYER:2/15 ELECT SUPPLIES/REPAIRS:PW MNTC ELECT SUPPLIES/REPAIRS:C.HALL ELECT SUPPLIES/REPAIRS:CRC POLICE BADGE:J.COMERCHERO BADGE ~ALLET:J.COMERCHERO FREIGHT SALES TAX FUND RAISER FOR TCSD: BOOKS REFSBMNT:PLAN COMMISSION WKSHP 001-161-999-5118 340-199-701-5118 340-199-702-5118 001-164-604-5118 190-180-999-5118 001-161-999-5118 001-120-999-5118 001-164-604-5118 001-140-999-5110 001-110-999-5260 280-199-999-5260 001-164-603-5212 340-199-701-5212 190-182-999-5212 001-100-999-5220 001-100-999-5220 001-100-999-5220 001-100-999-5220 190-183-4980 001-161-999-5272 1,384.00 6,000.00 1,950.00 945.00 17,708.80 1,785.49 853.80 284.60 488.16 294.93 589.86 254.25 3,980.34 1,214.62 75.00 25.00 104.79 218.14 56.11 61.20 35.00 6.94 7.46 176.00 111.27 1,384.00 6,000.00 1,950.00 945.00 17,708.80 9,746.05 100.00 379.04 110.60 176.00 111.27 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67192 67192 67193 67193 67194 67194 67194 67194 67194 67194 67194 67195 67195 67195 67195 67196 67196 67196 67196 67196 67196 67196 67196 67196 67196 67197 67190 67199 67200 67201 67202 67203 67203 67203 67203 67203 67203 67203 67203 67203 12:18 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 002037 EXPANETB 002037 EXPANETS 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 000166 FIRST AMERIOAN TITLE CO 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO 003271 FORMA SYSTEMS 003271 FOBMA SYSTEMS 003271 FORMA SYSTEMS 003271 FORMA SYSTEMS 000170 FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN GUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY GAERTNER, SUELLEN GELL, VAUGHNMARIE GLENDORA, CITY OF 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI 001609 GREATER ALARM COMPANY 002906 HEMET FENCE COMPANY 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 HIGHMARK IBC 002107 NIGHMARK INC 002107 HIGHMABK INC 002107 HIGHMARK IBC 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 HIGHMABK 1NC 002107 NIONMARK INC CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION PNONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL QTRLY TELEPHONE MNTC AGREEMENT EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES LOT BOOK REPT:DEROEUX LOT BOOK REPT:GLAISTER LOT BOOK REPT:BURKEY LOT BOOK REPT:BRUMO LOT BOOK REPT:GARCIA LOT BOOK REPT:BEARD LOT BOOK REPT:SMALL WINDOWS ARCVIEW GIS LICENSE UPGRADE-ARCVIEW GIS SOFTWARE FREIGHT SALES TAX DAY TIMER SUPPLIES ' PW/ENG DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - PV/ENG DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - PW/ENG FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT SALES TAX SALES TAX SALES TAX DAY TIMER SUPPLIES:PLANNING REFUND: EX'THE GETTY MUSEUM REFUND: PICNIC SHELTER PROCESS CTR POST TO WRONG ACCT PUB:INVEST PUB FUND 2 EDITION ALARM MONTORING SVC:SKATE PRK MARGARITA PK TENNIS COURT GATE 002107 VL ADVAN 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VOL LIFE 002107 VL REVER 002107 VOL LIFE ACCOUNT NUMBER 320-199-999-5215 320-199-999-5215 001-165-999-5230 001-162-999-5230 165-199-999-5250 165-199-999-5250 165-199-999-5250 165-199-999-5250 165-199-999-5250 165-199-999-5250 165-199-999-5250 001-161-610-5606 001-161-610-5606 001-161-610-5606 001-161-610-5606 001-163-999-5220 001-165-999-5220 001-164-604-5220 001-163-999-5220 001-165-999-5220 001-164-604-5220 001-163-999-5220 001-165-999-5220 001-164-604-5220 001-161-999-5220 190-183-4986 190-183-4989 001-170-4055 001-140-999-5228 190-180-999-5250 190-180-999-5212 001-2510 001-2510 190-2510 193-2510 194-2510 300-2510 340-2510 001-2510 001-2510 ITEM AMOUNT 1,084.32 2,256.00 92.28 8.39 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 1,912.00 298.00 40.00 174.38 62.09 76.64 64.27 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.04 6.22 5.23 171.79 17.00 25.00 30.00 55.95 105.00 500.00 215.30 194.80 11.87 2.22 .74 .80 4.87 215.30- 194.80 PAGE 8 CHECK AMOUNT 3,340.32 100.67 1,050.00 2,424.38 408.08 17.00 25.00 30.00 55.95 105.00 500.00 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67203 67203 67203 67203 67203 67204 67204 67204 67204 67204 67204 67204 67205 67205 67205 67206 67207 67208 67209 67210 67211 67212 67212 67212 67213 67214 67215 67216 67217 67217 67218 67218 67219 67219 67219 12:18 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 02/01/01 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 VOL LIFE 190-2510 02/01/01 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 VOL LIFE 193-2510 02/01/01 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 VOL LIFE 194-2510 02/01/01 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 VOL LIFE 300-2510 02/01/01 002107 HIGHMARK INC 002107 VOL LIFE 340-2510 02/01/01 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 02/01/01 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 02/01/01 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 02/01/01 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 02/01/01 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 02/01/01 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRU$ 000194 DEF COMP 02/01/01 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 02/01/01 002787 IDENTIGATOR CORPORATION 02/01/01 002787 IDENTIEATOR CORPORATION 02/01/01 002787 IDENTICATOR CORPORATION INDIAN CHILD & FAMILY S 02/01/01 02/01/01 001517 INTEGRATED INSIGHTS DBA 02/01/01 001186 IRWIN. JOHN 02/01/01 004119 J T S SUPPLY COMPANY IN 02/01/01 004265 JEWELL FENCE COMPANY 02/01/01 003223 K E A ENVIRONMENTAL, IN 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 001667 KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICE 002023 KING, WENDE 000209 L & M FERTILIZER INC 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 004087 LOWE'S 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 003818 MAIN STREET SMALL ANIMA 003818 MAIN STREET SMALL AN1MA 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC 001-2080 165-2080 190-2080 193-2080 194-2080 280-2080 300-2080 REPLACEMENT KIT-FINGERPRINTING 001-170-999-5242 FREIORT 001-170-999-5242 SALES TAX 001-170-999-5242 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 CUSTOMER SVC TRAINING:STAFF 001-150-999-5248 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 LOOP FINDER FOR PW MNTC CREWS 001-164-602-5242 RES IMPR PROM:MESSER,NED/ELLEN 165-199-813-5804 BIOLOGICAL SVC:PALA RD 8RDG 210-165-631-5801 TEMP NELP W/E 01/07 HANCOCK TEMP HELP W/E 01/14 BAACK TEMP HELP W/E 01/14 HANCOCK 001-171-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 001-140-999-5118 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 MNTC SUPPLIES FOR PW WORK CREW 001-164-601-5218 HP PRINTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221 RES IMPRV PRGM:YOUNG,KIMBERLY 165-199-813-5804 QTY 4 STOP SIGNS:PW MAINT CRW 001-164~601-5244 QTY 4 STOP SIGNS:PW MAINT CRW 001-164-601-5244 MEDICAL CARE FOR POLICE K-9 MEDICAL CARE FOR POLICE K-9 001-170-999-5327 001-170-999-5327 CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES VAR PARKS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES SE CTR CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-181-999-5212 ITEM AMOUNT 11.87 2.22 .74 .80 4.87 2,780.75 445.85 449.05 40.00 16.51 166.79 50.00 164.00 6.24 12.30 100.00 4,000.00 1,148.00 289.28 1,209.00 1,555.34 105.60 316.80 105.60 230.40 240.30 380.42 849.01 320.44 389.06 217.00 43.50 99.67 42.36 42.36 PAGE 9 CHECK AMOUNT 430.60 3,948.95 182.54 100.00 4,000.00 1,148.00 289.28 1,209.00 1,555.34 528.00 230.40 240.30 380.42 849.01 709.50 260.50 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 10 VOUCHER/ CNECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 67219 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC 67219 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC 67219 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC 67219 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC 67219 02/01/01 004141 MAINTEX INC MAINT FAC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 340-199-702-5212 CITY HALL CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 340'199'701-5212 TCC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 190'184-999-5212 T.V. MUSEUM CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 190-185-999-5212 CRC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 190'182-999'5212 42.36 42.36 42.36 42.36 17.97 371.80 67220 02/01/01 002664 MAR CO INDUSTRIES INC 67220 02/01/01 002664 MAR CO INDUSTRIES 67220 02/01/01 002664 MAR CO INDUSTRIES FACTORY CAT MAINT SERVICE 190-180-999-5215 CLARK FLOOR MACHINE MAINT SVC 190-182-999-5212 ADD'L PARTS FOR CLARK FLR MACH 190-182-999-5212 125.00 96.84 44.27 266.11 67221 02/01/01 004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA 67221 02/01/01 004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA 67221 02/01/01 004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA 67221 02/01/01 004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA PLANNING CONSULT SVCS:1/16-26 001-161-999-5248 PLANNING CONSULT SVCS:1/16-26 001-161-999-5248 PLANNING CONSULT SVCS:1/16-26 001-161-999-5248 CREDIT:EXCEEDS CONTRACT AMOUNT 001-161-999-5248 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 DENTALML 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 DENTALML 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 DENTALML 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 DENTALML 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 DENTALML 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 DENTALML 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 OENTALML 67222 02/01/01 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMP 003076 DENTALML 67223 02/01/01 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM 67223 02/01/01 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM 001~2340 165-2340 190-2340 193-2340 194-2340 280-2340 330-2340 340-2340 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 839.99 839.98 839.98 329.94- 3,886.28 200.93 680.30 68.38 5.44 100.45 18.14 130.60 216.00 128.00 2,190.01 5,090.52 344.00 67224 02/01/01 004208 MILANOS REFRESHMNTS:COUNCIL WKSHP:1/16 001-100-999-5260 172.50 172.50 67225 02/01/01 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 67225 02/01/01 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 67225 02/01/01 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 67225 02/01/01 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 67225 02/01/01 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: M. JORGENSON SALES TAX BUSINESS CARDS: D. THOMAS 2000 PIECES OF CITY LETTERREAD BLANK SECOND SHEET FOR LTRHEAD 001-140-999-5222 001-140-999-5222 001-161-999-5222 001-110-999-5222 001-110-999-5222 38.25 2.87 41.12 123.07 60.96 266.27 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO 67226 02/01/01 000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-163-999-5263 001-164-601-5263 001-164-604-5263 001-165-999-5263 280-199-999-5262 001-1990 001-170-999-5262 001-110-999-5263 190-180-999-5263 330-1990 34.98 19.59 24.37 73.33 20.55 19.81 292.36 28.10 42.69 12.45 568.23 67227 02/01/01 004109 MONTELEONE MEADOWS 67228 02/01/01 003039 MURRIETA VALLEY HIGH SC 67228 02/01/01 003039 MURRIETA VALLEY HIGH SC REFRSHMNTS:VOL RECOGN MTG:I/20 001-170-999-5370 ENTERTAINMENT:DICKENS HOL:12/8 280-199-999-5362 ENTERTAINMENT:DICKENS NOL:12/9 280-199-999-5362 1,500.00 150.00 150.00 1,500.00 300.00 VOOCHRE2 02/01/01 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67229 67229 67230 67231 67232 67233 67233 67233 67234 67234 67235 67235 67236 67237 67237 67238 67238 67239 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67240 67241 12:18 CHECK DATE 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITI NEW COVENANT FELLOWSHIP 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES- ATT 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS S 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY 002297 PACIFIC RELOCATION CONS 004319 PACIFIC ROOFING & DESIG 004319 PACIFIC ROOFING & DESIG 000472 PARADISE CHEVROLET CADI 000472 PARADISE CHEVROLET CADI CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES CREDIT:ITEMS RETURNED 001-164-601-5215 001-164-601-5215 CITY MEMBERSHIP:3~1~01-2~28/02 001-100-999-5226 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 DEC DISPLAY ADS:VAR CIP UPDATE 001-165-999-5256 CREDIT:SUPPLIES RETURNED OFFICE SUPPLIES-SATELLITE STN OFFICE SUPPLIES-SATELLITE STN 001-110-999-5220 001-170-999-5229 001-170-999-5229 CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 001-164-601-5214 CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT 190-180-999-5214 PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES PARAMEDIC SQUAD SUPPLIES 001-171-999-5311 001-171-999-5311 DEC CONSULT SV:CHILDREN MUSEUM 210-190-165-5804 DEC PRGS PMT:SPRTS PRK DESILT 210-190-171-5804 RET.W/H PMT:SPRTS PRK DESILT 210-2035 CHEVY 1/2 TON TRUCK:TCSD 310-1910 SALES TAX 310-1910 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000249 PETTY CASH 000580 PHOTO WORKS OF TEMECULA 001-2122 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5220 190-183-999-5320 280-199-999-5260 001-100-999-5260 210-190-165-5802 001-164-601-5260 001-111-999-5270 190-180-999-5301 001-1990 001-2175 190-181-999-5301 190-181-999-5301 001-164-601-5250 190-183-999-5371 190-183-999-5371 190-180-999-5301 001-120-999-5261 190-185-999-5301 001-163-999-5222 001-163-999-5222 DEC FILM/PHOTO DEV - TCSD 190-180-999-5250 108.45 89.20- 2,575.00 100.00 730.77 7.07- 57.93 85.99 46.17 611.17 184.74 79.12 1,470.00 97,026.00 9,702.60- 21,694.00 1,626.68 154.60 30.08 16.61 12.98 28.82 34.83 30.00 29.56 13.85 37.28 8.06 4.29 15.03 67.26 3.78 5.35 6.76 3.78 27.35 7.39 3.70 31.76 PAGE 11 CHECK AMOUNT 19.25 2,575.00 100.00 730.77 136.85 657.34 263.86 1,470.00 87,323.40 23,320.68 154.60 386.76 31.76 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 VOUCHER/ CRECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 67242 02/01/01 67242 02/01/01 67243 02/01/01 67243 02/01/01 67244 02/01/01 67245 02/01/01 67245 02/01/01 67246 02/01/01 67247 02/01/01 67248 02/01/01 67249 02/01/01 67249 02/01/01 67250 02/01/01 67251 02/01/01 67251 02/01/01 67252 02/01/01 67252 02/01/01 67253 02/01/01 67254 02/01/01 67254 02/01/01 67255 02/01/01 67256 02/01/01 67257 02/01/01 67257 02/01/01 67257 02/01/01 67258 02/01/01 67259 02/01/01 67259 02/01/01 67259 02/01/01 67260 02/01/01 67261 02/01/01 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR NUMBER 000254 000254 000981 000981 VENDOR ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN VARIOUS RECRUITMENT ADS FOR ER PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN VARIOUS RECRUITMENT ADS FOR HR R H F INC RHF INC RADAR EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT RADAR EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRINTS:MAINT FAC:O016 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST JAR 01-99-02003-0 FLOATING MTR 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST JAN 02-79-10100-1NW SPORTS PK 003490 RANCHO MUSIC ASSOOIATIO ENTERTAINMNT:DICKENS HOL:12/16 003698 RIVERSIDE CO ECONOMIC FY 00-01 BUSINESS MRKT AGRMNT 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD CONT OCT PLAN CHECK FEES:PAUBA IMPR RIVERSIDE CO. EMERG.MED INJURY PREV SUMMIT:MB:2/20/01 RIVERSIDE CO. EMERG.MED INJURY PREV SUMMIT:LH:2/20/01 004102 RIVERSIDE COMMUNICATION SIREN INSTALLATION FOR P.D. 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION PRG PMT #10:1st ST BRIDGE:9508 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION CREDIT:ADmCAN ENG SURVEY SVCS 000271 ROBERT BEIN gM FROST & NOV PRF BVC:I15/BWY 79/SANTIAG 000271 ROBERT BEIN WM FROST & 003544 ROBERT SNEA PERDUE REAL RODRIGUEZ~ YADIRA RODRIGUEZ, YADIRA 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE SARKIS, SUSAN SCHIDLOVSKY, TED SCHIDLOVSNY, TED SCHIDLOVSKY, TED 003843 SCREEN DOCTOR, TRE 003801 SELF~S JANITORIAL SERVI 003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI 003801 SELF~S JANITORIAL SERVl 002681 SILVER LEGACY RESORT & 000751 SKILLPATH INC NOV PRF BVC:I15/HWY 79/SANTIAG APPRAISAL FEE:MCCABE COURT REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND: ADD'L ROOM RENTAL RECRUITMENT AD:ACCOUNTING REFUND:SPORTS-SKYBWK FLAG FTBL REFUND:OVRPMT OF FEES:BO0-3436 REFUND:OVRPMT OF FEES:BDO-3436 REFUND:OVRPMT OF FEES:BDO-3436 RES IMPRV PRGM: UNDERHILL JAN CUSTOOIAL SVCS:VAR, PARKS JAN TES AQUACTIC CUSTODIAL BVC JAN OLD TOWN CUSTODIAL SVCS H?L:ACCELA CF:ALVAREZ:4/30-5/4 DSGN BROCHURES:GZ/JP:4/16/01 PAGE 12 ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 001-150-999-5254 1,347.49 001-150-999-5254 1,099.61 2,447.10 001-170-999-5215 59.00 001-170-999-5215 108.45 167.45 210-190-158-5804 50.77 50.77 001-164-601-5250 206.78 190-180-999-5240 65.25 272.03 280-199-999-5362 100.00 100.00 001-111-999-5264 75,000.00 75,000.00 210-165-606-5802 1,883.22 1,883.22 001-171-999-5261 25.00 001-171-999-5261 25.00 50.00 001-170-999-5610 2,862.30 2,862.30 280-199-807-5804 555,797.62 280-199-807-5804 990.00- 554,807.62 210-165-662-5802 1,838.49 210-165-705-5802 685.51 2~524.00 210-165-719-5802 3,400.00 3,400,00 190-2900 100.00 190-184-4990 88.00- 12.00 001-150-999-5254 533.43 533.43 190-183-4982 22.00 22.00 001-2290 1.14 001-162-4200 81.00 001-162-4285 108.00 190.14 165-199-813-5804 187.92 187.92 190-180-999-5250 3,440.00 190-186-999-5212 210.00 001-164-603-5250 210.00 3,860.00 001-161-999-5261 246.40 246.40 190-1990 298.00 298.00 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 67262 02/01/01 000751 SKILLPATH 67263 02/01/01 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 67263 02/01/01 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 67263 02/01/01 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 67263 02/01/01 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 67263 02/01/01 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 67264 02/01/01 000374 SO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 BO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 $0 CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 BO CALIF EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 SO CAL1F EDISON 67265 02/01/01 000537 BO CALIF EDISON 67266 02/01/01 003495 SO CALIF EDISON 67267 02/01/01 000282 SO CALIF MUNICIPAL ATBL 67268 02/01/01 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FU 67268 02/01/01 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FU 67269 02/01/01 BTENNETT, VILMA T. 67269 02/01/01 STENNETT, VILMA T. 67270 02/01/01 004411 STONESw JILLIAN 67271 02/01/01 003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 67272 02/01/01 000305 TARGET STORE CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 13 ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT BUS WRITING BASIC:HO/MA/ER:MAR 001-162-999-5261 190'183'999-5320 190'183'999'5320 190-183-999-5370 190-183-999-5320 190-183-999-5320 RECREATION CLASS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES FOR HIGH HOPES PRGM SUPPLIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS SUPPLIES FOR HIGH HOPES PRGM RECREATION CLASS SUPPLIES ST LIGHT FEES:PAUBA/DARTOLO RD 210-165-713-5804 JAN 2-11-007-0455 6TH ST 001-164-603-5240 JAN 2-10-747-1393 VARIOUS MTRS 190-180-999-5240 JAN 2-14-204-1615 FRNT ST RDIO 340-199-701-5240 JAN 2-18-937-3152 MORENO RD 190-185-999-5240 JAN 2-21-981-4720 HWY 79 210-165-631-5801 JAN 2-02-351-4946 SR CTR 190-181-999-5240 JAN 2-18-049-6416 FRONT ST PED 001-164-603-5319 JAN 2-21-911-7892 O.T. PRK LOT 210-165-828-5804 JAN 2-19-171-8568 WEDDING CHPL 190-185-999-5240 JAN 2-18-528-9980 SANTIAGO RD 190-180-999-5319 RELOC OVERHEAD FAC:OVRLND:9511 210-165-604-5804 SOFTBALL SUMMIT:LA/JW:1/11/01 190-180-999-5261 WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM DEPOSIT 001-1~0 WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM DEPOSIT 001-150-999-5250 REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900 REFUND: ROOM RENTAL 190-182-4990 ENTERTAINMENT:O.T.DICKENS NOL. 280-199-999-5362 DEC DESIGN SVC:R.C.BRIDGE:9918 210-165-710-5802 408.00 123.34 124.42 9.78 18.36 56.48 3,701.08 328.39 30.33 20.43 370.80 13.39 649.30 254.03 14.26 47.75 183.68 35,610.25 50.00 13,888.00 1,901.00 100.00 60.00 100.00 3,021.50 62.61 RECREATION SUPPLIES FOR SR CTR 190-181-999-5301 67275 02/01/01 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 001-2125 495.00 67273 02/01/01 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 190-2125 85.50 67275 02/01/01 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 193-2125 6.75 67273 02/01/01 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 194-2125 2.25 67275 02/01/01 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 320-2125 22.50 67275 02/01/01 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 330-2125 22.50 672~3 02/01/01 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 001547 UN DUES 340-2125 40.50 67274 02/01/01 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE 67274 02/01/01 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE 67274 02/01/01 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE 67274 02/01/01 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE 67274 02/01/01 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE 67274 02/01/01 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE 5,353.18 225.00 934.00 1.25 9.75 75.00 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 001-1020 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 165-1020 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 190-1020 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 192-1020 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 193-1020 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX 280-1020 408.00 332.38 3,701.08 1,912.36 35,610.25 50.00 15,789.00 160.00 100.00 3,021.50 62.61 675.00 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 12:18 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 14 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67274 67274 67274 67275 67276 CHECK DATE 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 VENDOR VENDOR ITEM NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION 000642 TEMECULA CITY 000642 TEMECULA CITY 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX FLEXIBLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX FLEXIBLE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO FLEX TEMECULA SISTER CITY AS REIMB:BERITAGE DAY/NOL. PARADE 000307 TEMECULA TROPRY COMPANY PLAQUE FOR CONGRESSMAN PACKARD ACCOUNT NUMBER 194-1020 330-1020 340-1020 001'101'999'5280 001'100'999'5265 ITEM AMOUNT 3.75 466.66 11.25 777.17 101.00 CNECK AMOUNT 7,079.84 777.17 101.00 67277 67278 67279 67279 67280 67281 67281 67281 67281 67282 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 003519 TEMECULA VALLEY ART LEA FY 00-01 COMM SVC FUNDING AWRD 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURIT CRC LOCKSMITH SERVICES 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 004402 TEMECULA VALLEY WINEGRO ADVERTISING - SUNSET MAGAZINE 003849 TERRYDERRY COMPANY 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY 003849 TERRYDERRY COMPANY EMP SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARDS EMP SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARDS EMP SERVICE PINS & PENDANTS EMP SERVICE RECOGNITION AWARD 000319 TOMARK SPORTS INC RECREATION SUPPLIES 001-101-999-5267 190-182-999-5212 190-183-999-5330 190-183-999-5330 001-111-999-5270 001-150-999-5265 001-150-999-5265 001-150-999-5265 001-150-999-5265 190-187-999-5301 1,000.00 32.24 60.00 20.00 5,000.00 41.82 423.93 989.64 58.79 560.00 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 001-2360 148.88 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 165-2360 3.01 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 190-2360 30.46 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 192-2360 .08 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 193-2360 3.23 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 194-2360 .59 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 280-2360 1.49 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 300-2360 .74 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 320-2360 6.00 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 330-2360 2.25 67283 02/01/01 003560 TRANSAMERICA 003560 AD&D 340-2360 4.27 67284 TRIMARK PACIFIC-TEMECUL REFUND:FEE OVERPMT:LDOI-OO4GR 001-2670 02/01/01 5.00 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 001-2080 10,457.78 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 165-2080 101.16 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 190-2080 2,055.13 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (OEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 192-2080 7.50 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 193-2080 125.22 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 194-2080 30.00 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 280-2080 117.36 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 300-2080 88.54 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP 320-2080 1,416.68 67285 02/01/01 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 001065 DEF COMP . 340-2080 125.95 1,000.00 32.24 80.00 5,000.00 1,514.18 560.00 201.00 5.00 14,525.32 67286 02/01/01 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR 001-2160 11391.10 67286 02/01/01 000389 U S C M WEST (ODRA) 000389 PT RETIR 165-2160 90.54 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 VOUCHER/ CRECN NUMBER 67286 67286 67286 67286 67286 67286 67287 67287 67287 67287 67287 67287 67287 67287 67287 67287 67288 67289 67289 67289 67289 67290 67290 67290 67290 67291 67291 67292 67293 67294 67294 67294 67294 67294 67295 67295 12:18 CNECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 02/01/01 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 000389 U S C M WEST (ORRA) 000325 UNITED NAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UNITED WAY 000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATE 004147 VAUGHN IRRIGATION SERVI 004147 VAUGHN IRRIGATION SERVI 004147 VAUGHN IRRIGATION SERVI 004147 VAUGHN IRRIGATION SERVI 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 003~0 WEST COAST ARBORISTB IN 003730 WEST COAST ARBORIBTS IR 003850 WET PAINT GRAPHIC DESIG 003756 WHITE HOUSE SANITATION 000345 XEROX CORPORATION SILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILL! 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 004211 YEE, FRANK 004211 YEEo FRANK CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000389 PT RETIR 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW 000325 UW NOV 2000 PLAN CHECK SERVICES DUCK POND MAIN LIGHT ASSEMBLY SHORT CABLE FOR FOUNTAIN REPAIR DUCK POND FOUNTAIN REPAIR DUCK POND FOUNTAIN JAN XXX-2626 SATELLITE STN JAN XXX-3526 FIRE ALARM JAN XXX-5857 GENERAL USAGE JAN XXX-9897 GENERAL USAGE TREE MNTC SVC:RIDGEVIEW TREE MNTC SVC:BAHIA VISTA PARK ARTWORK FOR "MORE SHOPS" SIGN CLEANING SVCS:BTTRFLD STAGE RR OCT-DEC RASE CHRG:2510 COPIER DEC LEASE OF DC220 COPIER DEC MNTC/SUPPLIES DC220 COPIER DEC INTEREST OF DC220 DOPIER DEC BASE CHRG:5830 COPIER DEC CONSULT SVCS:TRAFFIC DIV CREDIT:EXCEEDS CONTRACT AMOUNT ACCOUNT NUMBER 190-2160 193-2160 280-2160 320-2160 330-2160 340-2160 001-2120 165-2120 190-2120 192-2120 193-2120 194-2120 280-2120 320-2120 330-2120 340-2120 001-162-999-5248 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 190-180-999-5212 001-170-999-5229 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 320-199-999-5208 193-180-999-5415 190-180-999-5415 280-199-999-5362 190-180-999-5250 330-199-999-5239 330-2800 330-199-999-5217 330-199-999-5391 330-199-999-5217 001-164-602-5248 001-164-602-5248 ITEM AMOUNT 850.98 22.22 26.42 94.52 38.34 5.02 127.05 8.75 27.60 .11 2.20 .49 2.50 5.00 5.00 .60 2,492.62 540.25 54.17 110.00 1,338.00 240.57 82.88 42.91 75.95 2,030.00 638.00 210.11 50.00 381.96 126.41 48.99 77.57 80.30 540.00 90.00- PAGE 15 CHECK AMOUNT 2,519.14 179.30 2,492.62 2,042.42 442.31 2,668.00 210.11 50.00 715.23 450.00 TOTAL CHECKS 1,126~4.81 VOUCHNE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 02/01/01 17:02 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP 300 INSURANCE FUND 310 VEHICLES FUND AMOUNT 283,041.25 4,086.64 12,833.00 5,486.80 385,665.96 6,726.00 7,652.44 80,097.40 TOTAL 785,589.49 VOUCHRE2 02/01/01 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER 67298 67299 67299 67300 67301 67301 67301 67302 67303 67304 67305 67306 67307 67307 67308 67309 67310 67310 67311 67311 67311 67311 67312 67312 67313 67313 67314 67314 67314 67314 67'314 67514 67'315 67315 17:02 CHECK DATE 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/D1 02/13/D1 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 02/13/01 VENDOR NUMBER 002187 003629 003629 002900 004387 004387 004387 004239 004115 003986 001719 003286 004383 004383 003782 003800 002256 002256 003218 003218 003218 003218 001416 001416 004029 004029 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 002412 000955 000955 CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS VENDOR ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE V ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES CALTROP ENGINEERING.COR CALTROP ENGINEERING COR DANIEL MANN JOHNSON DITCH WITCH OF SO CALIF DITCH WITCH OF BO CALIF DITCH WITCH OF SO CALIF FISHER MERRIMAN SEHGAL K T U & ASSOCIATES KEVIN COZAD & ASSOCIATE L P A IHC LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI MACKENZIE ELECTRIC INC MACKENZIE ELECTRIC INC MAIN STREET SIGNS MCLAUGHLIN ENGINBERING P & D CONSULTANTS INC P & D CONSULTANTS INC PELA PELA PELA PELA NOV-DEC INSPECT SVC:IST BRIDGE CRDT:HO BACK-UP FOR OTHER COST JUL-AUG DESIGN SVC:PALA RD II PORTABLE SELF CONTAIN VACUUM FREIGHT SALES TAX DESIGN SVC:OLD TWH THEATER MULTI-USE TRAIL DESIGNS SVC STREET SIGNS REPLACEMENT PRGM ADD~T SVCS=LIBRARY DESIGN DEC SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-172'999'5255 280-199-807-5801 280-199-807-5801 210'165'668'5802 001-164-601-5610 001'164'601-5610 001'164'601'5610 210-190'167-5802 210-190-176-5802 001-164-601-5248 210-199-129'5802 001-101-999'5285 PRGS PMT#1:R.C.SPORTS PK:O0-19 210'190'174-5804 RET.W/B PMT #I:R.C.SPORTS PARK 210'2035 PW ROAD SIGNS-INSTALL/REPAIR 001-164-601-5244 RELEASE RETENTION:R.C.TOT LOT 210-2035 DEC TEMP BLDG INSPECT SVCS 001-162-999-5118 ADD'L MILEAGE CHRG:VIRDBH/CARL 001-162-999-5118 NOV/DEC PLAN CK SVCS:PLANNING 001-161-999-5250 NOV/DEC LDSDP PLN CK SVCS:TCSD 190-180-999-5248 NOV/DEC LDSCP PLN CK SVCS:TCSD 193-180-999-5248 CREDIT:EXCEEDS CONTRACT AMOUNT 001-161-999-5250 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS IH RECYCLING CONTAINERS QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS IN SALES TAX 194-180-999-5610 194-180-999-5610 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC OCT DSGN SVC:AQUATIC FAC PH II 210-190-170-5802 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC NOV DSGN SVC:AQUATIC FAC PH II 210-190-170-5802 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH DEC 2000 LEGAL SERVICES RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH DEC 2000 LEGAL SERVICES RICHARDS WATSON & GERSB DEC 2000 LEGAL SERVICES RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH DEC 2000 LEGAL SERVICES RICBARDS WATSON & GERSB DEC 2000 LEGAL SERVICES RICHARDS WATSON & GERSB DEC 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246 001-130-999-5246 190-180-999-5246 280-199-999-5246 210-165-631-5801 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ROD RUN PATROL SERVICES 001-170-999-5370 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW DEC 2000 BIKE PATROL SERVICES 001-170-999-5326 ITEM AMOUNT 5,907.55 6,656.59 105.59- 40,869.97 44,870.00 500.00 3,365.25 22,013.75 18,765.00 5,130.00 6,310.00 10,082.96 22,200.00 2,220.00- 5,706.14 9,250.89 13,419.76 47.68 10,250.00 3,375.00 6,975.00 5,115.00- 5,104.00 382.80 49~157.68 25,212.13 7,652.44 28,867.94 711.64 175.00 160.00 207.95 16,876.93 13,113.73 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 5,907.55 6,551.00 40,869.97 48,735.25 22,013.75 18,765.00 5,130.00 6,310.00 10,082.96 19,980.00 5,706.14 9~250.89 13,467.44 15,485.00 5,486.80 74,369.81 37,774.97 29,990.66 VOUCHRE2 PAGE 2 02/01/01 17:02 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 67316 02/13/01 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D 67316 02/13/01 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D 67316 02/13/01 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D 67317 02/13/01 004132 TRUCK HYDRAULIC EQUIPME 67318 02/13/01 67318 02/13/01 ~7319 02/13/01 004244 TRUGREEN LAND CARE 004244 TRUGREEN LAND CARE 004368 VALI COOPER & ASSOCIATE 67320 02/13/01 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS 1N CITY OF TEMECULA VOUCBER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION FY99-O0 FIELD TRAINING-LAW ENF OCT 2000 BOOKING FEES NOV 2000 ROOKING FEES UTILITY AERIAL TRUCK FOR P.W. PRG PMT #1:0.T.SO.SIDE PRK LOT RET. ~/H PMT #1:BO.SIDE PK LOT NOV TEMP INSPECT SVCS:CIP DIV TREE MNTC SVC:RIDGEVIEW/VINTAG ACCOUNT HUMBER 001-2030 001-170-999-5273 001-170-999-5273 310-1910 210-165-828-5804 210-2035 001-165-999-5118 193-180-999-5415 ITEM AMOUNT 91,852.80 13,910.40 11,150.40 80,097.40 215,496.15 21~549.61- 12,896.76 5,858.00 CHECK AMOUNT 116,913.60 80,097.40 193,946.54 12,896.76 5,858.00 TOTAL CHECKS 785,589.49 ITEM 4 CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN~~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance~ February 13, 2001 City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2000 PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director Pascale Brown, Senior Accountant ~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2000. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report which provides this information. Also attached are reports that provide information regarding the City's assets, liabilities, and fund balances as of December 31, 2000. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of December 31, 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2000 2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of December 31, 2000 3. Fund Equity Detail by Fund as of December 31, 2000 As of December31, 2000 Cash Activity for the Month of December Cash and Investments as of Deoemb~r 1, 2000 51,928,909 4,290,341 (1,932,774) $ 54,286,476 Caah and Inv~tmenta Portfolio: (Parking Citatiom) Trust Aoco~ts- CFD 88-12 (Money Market A~oouat) 0nv~tm~at Agreement) (investment Agl~m~llt) (Lo~al Agony Investment Fund) (Inveatment Agrecmen0 Institution Yield City Hall Union Bank n/a Unlon Bank 5.170 (Highmark U.S. Trgasury) Union Bank ~/a Stata Treasurer 6.535 Community Bank 5.560 U.S. Bank Various Union Bank a/a U.S. Bank (First CDC Funding Corp 5.430 CDC Fundiag Corp 5.422 U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 5.930 Stutu Tr~asta-~r 6.535 U.S. Bank (First Bay~lSsoh~ Land,bank 6.870 U.S. Bank (Fil~; Bay~risoh: Lan&shank 7.400 Maturiw/ Contractual/ Tcrminatioa Market Par/Book Date Value Balanoe 9/172017 9/1/2017 10/1/2012 2/172013 1,500 $ 1,500 278,557 278,557 (1) 106,000 186,000 3,916 3,916 48,227,450 48,227,450 (2) 218,550 218,550 244,087 244,087 3,668 3,668 103,767 193,767 1.531,469 1,531,469 500,000 500,000 915 915 944,425 944,425 543 543 502,690 502,690 1,448,920 1,440,920 $ 54~286,476 City of Temecula Schedule ol Assels, Liabililies, and Fund Balance~ As of December 3 !, 2000 Prepaid assets City(l) Community Community Services Redevelopment Facilitiea Dis~et A~ency Districts (2) Total 41,137,518 $ 1,050,229 S 8,526,106 $ 3,572,623 $ 54,286,476 7,653,674 17,345 2,347,832 13,069 10,031,920 1,432,987 19,220 5,059 1,457,266 530,401 ' 2,103,053 2,633,454 121,768 121,768 382,868 382,868 1,277,727 1,277,727 $ 52,536,944 $ 1,086,794 $ 12,976,991 $ 3,590,751 S 70,191,480 Liabilitie~ and fuad equity: Total llabiliti~ Reserved (3) Desigaat~d (3) Total fuad ~quity Total liabilities and fund equity 1,452,207 $ 5,059 $ 1,457,266 7,667,354 $ 1,524,636 $ 787,027 3,562,113 13,541,130 508,238 1,007,464 1,515,702 9,627,799 1,524,636 1,794,491 3,567,172 16,514,098 1,281,780 1,288,157 14,565,251 23,70~641 2,064,316 42,909,145 1,281,780 1,288,157 1,250,737 11,448,576 27,264,564 16,591 23,579 23,749,811 (1,705,170) {266,076) 93,070 (437,842) 11,182,500 23,570 53,677,382 $ 52,536,944 $ 1,086,794 $ 12,976,991 $ 3,590,751 $ 70,191,480 ITEM 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR.OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance February 13, 2001 Property Insurance Renewal PREPARED BY: Gus Papagolos, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Approve the City of Temecula Property Insurance Policy renewal with Chubb Insurance Company, Royal/Agricultural & Greenwich Insurance Companies and Lloyd's of London for the period of February 26, 2001 through February 26, 2002, in the amount of $83,736. DISCUSSION: The City's General Property insurance policy with Chubb Insurance Company and Royal/Agricultural and Greenwich Insurance Companies expires on February 26, 2001. Based on the current market conditions, staff directed the City's Property Insurance Broker, CaI-Surance Associates, Inc., to market the City's property insurance policy. In response to this request, Cal- Surance Associates, Inc. validated the comprehensive inventory of all City buildings and property requiring coverage, and obtained several qualified proposals for basic property insurance. Two of the most competitive proposals were received from the following companies in the amounts listed below. Additionally, CaI-Surance Associates, Inc. has provided a proposal for Earthquake and Flood Insurance from Royal/Agricultural and Greenwich Insurance Companies: INSURANCE CARRIER Chubb Insurance Royal Indemnity Co. EARTHQUAKE/ BASE FINE ARTS / ARCHES TOTAL PREMIUM HISTORICAL BUILDING PREMIUM $38,362 $45,624 $83,986 $41,900 $45,624 $87,524 The total Property Insurance premium of $83,986 is an overall increase of $6,794 (8.8% rate increase) from the previous year's annualized policy premium of $77,192. The City's basic Earthquake premium increased from $43,162 to $45,624 which is an ~ncrease of only 5.7%. The City will maintain earthquake coverage in the amount of $10 million based on the total value of all City property having been assessed at $22.4 million, and the fact that total losses are not likely to occur in the event of a major earthquake. This is the recommendation from the Cities property insurance broker and is in accordance with the industry standard and practices. Additionally, earthquake insurance has been placed on the historical building (Mercantile) with Lloyd's of London. The carriers are admitted carriers in the State of California. This means that if any of these carriers were to become insolvent, then the City would have the benefit of the California Guarantee Fund to pay all covered claims made during the policy period. The City's risk is minimal in using Chubb because in addition to being an admitted carrier it has a financial size category $2 billion of reported capital surplus and conditional reserve funds. The attached proposals summarize the premium and coverage provided by Chubb, Royal/Agricultural and Greenwich Insurance Companies. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate revenues are available in the Insurance Internal Service Fund. Attachments: 1. Chubb Insurance Proposal Summary 2. Earthquake Proposal (Royal/Agricultural and Greenwich and Lloyd's of London) CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY PROPOSAL SUMMARY TERM: February 26, 2001 - February 26, 2002 FORMAT: Occurrence NAMED INSURED: City of Temecula PROPERTY COVERAGE LOCATION BUILDING & CONTENTS DEDUCTIBLE ALL (Except $20,871,390 $5,000 per Mercantile Building) occurrence Mercantile Building $277,757 $25,000 ADDITIONAL COVERAGE INCLUDED: COVERAGE LIABILITY LIMIT Building & Personal Property $20,871,390 Contractor's Equipment $272,577 Business Income $485,716 Property In Transit - Fine Arts $100,000 Valuable Papers $1,050,000 Mobile Equipment $209,606 EDP Property $1,307,366 Fine Arts - Museum $1,000,000 Voice Communications Equipment $233,168 Newly Acquired Equipment $25,000 Earthquake Sublimit $2,000,000 Fine Arts any location $100,000 Machinery Breakdown Included CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY PROPOSAL SUMMARY TERM: February 26, 2001 - February 26, 2002 FORMAT: Occurrence NAMED INSURED: City of Temecula PROPERTY COVERAGE LOCATION BUILDING & CONTENTS DEDUCTIBLE ALL (Except $20,871,390 $5,000 per Mercantile Building) occurrence Mercantile Building $277,757 $25,000 ADDITIONAL COVERAGE INCLUDED: COVERAGE LIABILITY LIMIT Building & Personal Property $20,871,390 Contractor's Equipment $272,577 Business Income $485,716 Property In Transit - Fine Arts $100,000 Valuable Papers $1,050,000 Mobile Equipment $209,606 EDP Property $1,307,366 Fine Arts - Museum $1,000,000 Voice Communications Equipment $233,168 Newly Acquired Equipment $25,000 Earthquake Sublimit $2,000,000 Fine Arts any location $100,000 Machinery Breakdown Included Coverages Included in $250,000 "Blanket Limit" ADDITIONAL COVERAGES Chubb Form LIMIT Electronic Data Processing Equipment Blanket Limit Personal Property of Employees Blanket Limit Consequential Damage Blanket Limit Fire Department Service Charges Blanket Limit Fine Arts Blanket Limit Extra Expenses Blanket Limit Accounts Receivable Blanket Limit Valuable Papers Blanket Limit Outdoor Trees, Shrubs, Plants or Lawns Installation Blanket Limit Leasehold Interest Blanket Limit Newly Acquired Premises or Constructed Property COVERAGES With Specific Limits LIMIT Building $2,000,000 Electronic Data Processing Equipment $1,000,000 Electronic Data Processing Media & Duplicates $1,000,000 Fine Arts $20,000 Telephone Equipment $100,000 CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT PROVIDED BY CHUBB DEDUCTIBLE: COINSURANCE: VALUATION: $1,000 Agreed Amount Replacement Cost SCHEDULED EQUIPMENT: 1991 Massey Ferguson Trailer 2 Utility Trailers 1992 Flexo Arrow Trailer Speed Limit Sign John Deere 310D Backhoe Police Command Trailer 2 Cairnsiris Helmets (each $25,350) High Density Mobile Storage Sys Traffic Signal modification Walk Behind Patch Truck Mobile Traffic Monitor Total $31,500 $ 7,910 $ 5,500 $10,OO0 $64,76O $45,OOO $50,700 $18,750 $14,590 $11,167 $12,700 $272,577 EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE TO BE PROVIDED BY ROYAL/AGRICULTURAL AND GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY COVERAGE: INTERESTS COVERED: LIMITS: UNDERLYING LIMITS/DEDUCTIBLE EXCLUSIONS: VALUATION: Difference In Conditions including earthquake, earthquake sprinkler leakage, and flood. Real property, personal property, business income, extra expense, valuable papers, EDP hardware, EDP software, EDP extra expense, stock tenants improvements, and betterments, and equipment. $10,000,000 per occurrence, and in the annual aggregate as respects earthquake sprinkler leakage subject to earthquake aggregate. $25,000 per occurrence, except 5% per unit of insurance (including time element) subject to a minimum of $50,000 per occurrence for earthquake $50,000 per occurrence for flood Pollution, contamination, asbestos, flood zone 'A' Replacement cost, except actual loss sustained on time element ITEM 6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ~ DIR. OF FINANCE AGENDA REPORT City Council Shawn Nelson, City Manager February 13, 2001 Approval of 2000-01 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director~-/ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2001- RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET entitled: DISCUSSION: Each year the City conducts a mid-year review of its operating budget. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the City maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Finance Department staff has performed an analysis of revenues. All City departments have reviewed their operating budgets and have identified any material adjustments required. The mid-year budget review includes the General Fund, Gas Tax Fund, State Transportation Fund, and the Internal Service Funds. Activity in each of the funds is presented in accordance with the following schedules: Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balance: Presents a summary of prior year and FY 2000-01 year-to-date actual activity, as well as the FY 2000-01 current and proposed budget amounts. Also included is a schedule of beginning and estimated ending fund balance based upon the proposed budget activity. Revenue Detail: Presents detail of prior year and FY 2000-01 year-to date revenues, as well as the FY 2000-01 current and revised projected revenues. General Fund The projected General Fund revenues reflect a $224,000 or 0.7% increase over the original budget estimate. The material projected revenue increases are in property taxes ($383,000), investment income ($250,000), and sales tax ($200,000). Several smaller revenue increases are projected as well. Decreases are proposed in the following revenue categories: land development and fire related community development fees, vehicle code fines, and capital improvement program reimbursements. A total increase of $213,000 or 0.7% is requested in General Fund operating expenditures as follows: City Attorney: A $40,000 increase is requested due to legal costs incurred as a result of several major development agreements and specific plans being processed. Human Resources: A $16,000 increase is requested due to higher than anticipated job recruitment/advertising costs being incurred. Planning: A $27,000 increase is requested in consulting services due to the higher than anticipated cost of the General Plan update. Animal Control: A 930,000 increase is requested to cover increased animal control contract costs incurred as a result of higher than anticipated activity levels, an increase in contract rates, and a modification to the animal control contract approved by the City Council which provides for a portion of animal license fees to be retained by Animal Friends of the Valley instead of being used to offset contract costs to the City. These license fees will be applied by Animal Friends of the Valley towards the City's share of building a new facility. Non-Departmentah A 9100,000 increase is requested in the CFD 88-12 sales tax reimbursement to property owners within the district. This increase is required due to higher than anticipated sales tax being generated within the district, 25% of which is required by agreement to be rebated to property owners. Gas Tax and State Transportation Funds A 978,000 increase is projected in Gas Tax revenues. In addition, a 9393,000 revenue increase is reflected due to the receipt of State Traffic Congestion Mitigation funds pursuant to AB2928. Staff will bring forward a request for the appropriation of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation funds at a later date. Internal Service Funds A 940,700 increase is projected in Internal Service Fund revenues. A 912,200 increase in capital outlay is requested in the Information Systems Fund for license fees related to the SQL Database Server that is essential to the operation of the City's permitting software (Sierra) and financial software (Eden). 2 Authorized Positions No changes are proposed to the Schedule of Authorized Positions FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed mid-year budget adjustments will result in a net increase of $11,000 to the General Fund reserves. The undesignated fund balance will be approximately 92,093,983 at June 30, 2001. Attachments: Resolution No. 2001-__ Mid-Year Budget Amendment 2000-01 General Fund Mid-Year Budget 2000-01 Gas Tax and State Transportation Funds Mid-Year Budget 2000-01 Internal Service Funds Mid-Year Budget RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET ~:~ WHEREAS, each year a mid-year revie~'s conducted of City operating budgets. WHEREAS, the purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the City maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. WHEREAS, the mid-year review has been completed and the recommended adjustments are reflected in the attached schedules for the City's General Fund and Internal Service Funds. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the Fiscal Year 2000-01 General Fund Annual Operating Budget is hereby amended in accordance with the attached General Fund Mid-Year Budget. Section 2. That the Fiscal Year 2000-01 Gas Tax and State Transportation Funds Annual Operating Budget are hereby amended in accordance with the attached Gas Tax and State Transportation Funds Mid-Year Budget. Section 3. That the Fiscal Year 2000-01 Internal Service Funds Budgets are hereby amended in accordance with the attached Internal Service Funds Mid-Year Budget. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 13th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk for the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001-_ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk 2000-01 GENERAL FUND MID-YEAR BUDGET CITY OF TEMECULA SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND 2000-01 MID-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET 00-01 00-01 00-01 Proposed % 99-00 YTD Current Proposed Increase Increase Actual ~ 12/31/00 Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues 31,300,531 15,255,843 31,781,358 32,005,358 Expenditures by Dept: City Council 274,709 142,700 282,210 282,210 Community Support 368,253 217,029 472,138 472,138 City Manager 594,066 293,229 619,731 619,731 Economic Development 791,974 408,848 805,580 805,580 City Clerk 537,856 266,020 598,900 598,900 City Attorney 253,720 178,543 347,500 387,500 Finance 980,130 521,397 1,111,141 1,111,141 Human Resources 293,091 156,486 319,290 335,290 Planning 1,635,227 911,849 2,626,211 2,653,211 Building & Safety 1,717,961 790,984 1,788,990 1,788,990 Engineering 926,393 452,619 1,137,601 1,137,601 Public Works 2,677,888 1,450,420 4,172,119 4,172,119 CIP Admin 1,148,955 601,774 1,507,110 1,507,110 Police 6,347,438 2,894,257 7,440,135 7,440,135 Fire 2,354,118 977,843 2,581,576 2,581,576 Animal Control 56,564 49,339 80,000 110,000 Non-Departmental 2,489,729 1,562,387 3,159,000 3,259,000 Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out: Capital Projects Information Systems Vehicles Total Operating Transfers Out Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out 224,000. 40,000 16,000 27,000 30,000 100,000 23,448,072 11,875,724 29,049,232 29,262~232 213,000 7,852,459 3,380,119 2,732,126 2,743,126 11,000 4,287,482 4,000,000 4,032,200 4,032,200 233,000 106~000 55,000 55,000 55,000 4~626,482 4,055,000 4~087,200 4~087,200 3,225,977 (674,881) (1,355,074) (1,344,074~) 0.7% 11.5% 5.0% 1.0% 37.5% 3.2% 0.7% CITY OF TEMECULA SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND 2000-01 MID-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET OOq~)l 99-00 YTD Actual ~ 12/31/00 Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 13,884,865 Revenues 31,300,531 Expenditures and Transfers Out (28,074~554) Fund Balance, End of Year 17,110,842 Detail of Fund Balance: Reserved for land held for resale Reserved for long-term advance to RDA 'Reserved for long-term advance to ClP (Overland) Reserved for long-term receivables Reserved for comprehensive annual leave Unreserved: Designated for continuing appropriation Designated for advance to CIP (Chaparral Pool) Designated for economic uncertainty Undesignated 00-01 00-01 Current Proposed Budget Budget 17,110,842 17,110,842 31,781,358 32,005,358 (33~136,432) (33,349,432) 15,755,768 15,766,768 530,401 918,171 1,425,000 320,000 500,000 200,543 1,000,000 8,778,670 2,093,983 t5,766~768 GENERAL FUND REVENUE DETAIL FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO OO1 GENERAL FUND ACTUALS YTD @12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE ~EPT 161 PLANNING -Various 395,069 207,604 458,50C 45.3% 458,500 :)EPT 162 BUILDING -Various 2,419,652 1,039,696 1,887,70(; 55.1% 1,887,700 DEPT 163 LAND DEVELOPMENT -Various 2,201,163 511,948 1,800,000 28.4% 1,100,000 (700,000', -38.9°~ DEPT 164 ClP 4076 -Reimbursements 1,565 185 DEPT 170 POLICE 4051 -Donations Every 15 Minutes 12,500 20,006 20,000 4055 -Parking Citations 61,112 34,732 67,000 51.8% 67,000 4060 -Miscellaneous 20,401 11,156 21,500 51.9% 21,500 4067 -Vehicle impound Fees 19,575 14,459 18,300 79.0% 23,300 5,000 27.3% 4076 -Reimbursements 153,243 42,983 85,00(] 50.6% 85,000 4083 -Grants 132,629 118,598 128,000 92.7% 162,000 34,000 26.6% 4085 -AB3229 (COPS) 108,643 116,791 111,900 104.4% 116,900 5,000 4.5% 4088 -Donations 600 4116 -Conditional Use Permit 115 4125 -Temporary Outdoor Event 2,671 967 2,500 38.7% 2,500 DEPT 171 FIRE 4036 -Fire Plan Check 235,799 70,909 227,000 31.2% 142,000 (85,000) -37.4% 4037 -Fire Inspection 132,702 35,602 120,000 29.7% 72,000 (48,000) -40.0% 4038 -License Care Facility Fees 784 DEPT 199 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4010 -Praperty Tax 1,378,672 574,844 1,401,000 41.0% 1,757,000 356,000 25.4% 4012 -Property Tax (Unsecured) 81,533 67,470 88,000 76.7% 105,000 17,000 19.3% 4013 -Supplemental Tax - AB 2345 22,802 14,434 16,000 90.2% 26,000 10,000 62.5% 4015 -ERAF Reimbursement 111,390 156,683 156,000 156,000 ¢016 -Property Transfer Tax 376,440 169,407 335,000 50.6% 385,000 50,000 14.9% ¢017 -Booking Fee Reimbursement 106,867 106,867 106,800 100.1% 106,80C ¢018 -Franchise Fees 1,331,593 428,094 1,334,500 32.1% 1,367,00C 32,500 2.4% ¢020 -Transient Occupancy Tax 1,206,095 654,977 1,330,000 49.2% 1,350,00C 20,000 1.5% 4024 -Sales and Use Tax 14,009,322 7,871,164 15,500,000 50.8% 15,700,00£ 200,000 1.3% ¢025 -Grants 2,792 5,868 5,868 100.0% 5,86E 4028 -Homeowner Property Tax Relief 40,256 7,083 39,000 18.2% 46,00£ 7,000 17.9% 4032 -Candidate Filing Fees 125 4042 -Motor Vehicle License Fees 51,802 18,602 60,000 31.0% 52,00£ (8,000 -13.3% ¢045 -Off Road Vehicle In Lieu 1,014 660 900 73.3% 90¢ 4046 -Motor Vehicle in Lieu 2,331,981 1,318,616 2,400,000 54.9% 2,550,00~ 150,000 6.3% ¢047 -Vehicle Code Fines 344,925 86,783 525,000 16.5% 325,00£ (200,000) -38.1% ¢053 -Bids & Proposals 11,404 3,091 13,500 22.9% 6,00£ (7,500 -55.6% ¢056 -Business Licenses 206,963 67,325 205,000 32.8% 205,00C ¢058 -Miscellaneous 45 100 ¢060 -Miscellaneous Non Taxable 37,835 9,829 15,000 65.5% 20,00£ 5,000 33.3% ¢061 -Returned Check Fee 450 260 ¢062 -Recovery of Prior Year Expense 126,536 1065 -Investment Interest 1,262,576 797,958 928,000 86.0% 1,178,00£ 250,000 26.9% ¢070 -Cash Over & Short -28 25 1075 -Rentallncome 1,030 ¢076 -Reimbursements 48,700 24,081 47,00C 47,000 ~.077 -Community Services District 162,000 81,000 162,000 50.0% 162,00~ 1082 -Redevelopment Agency 125,000 112,500 225,000 50.0% 225,00C ~.083 -Capitallmprovement Program 1,014,051 382,237 1,205,690 31.7% 1,055,69£ (150,000) -12.4% ~-090 -Operating Transfera-in 1,009,767 88~625 937~700 9.5% 1,015,70£ 78,000 8.3% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 31 ~300~531 15,255,843 31 ~781,358 48.0% 32,005,35~ 224~000 0.7% 01midyear-REV 02/05/2001 2000-01 GAS TAX AND STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS MID-YEAR BUDGET CITY OF TEMECULA SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE GAS TAX FUND 2000-01 MID-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET 00-01 00-01 00-01 Proposed % 99-00 YTD Current Proposed Increase increase Actual {~ 12/31/00 Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues 923,245 434,765 937,700 Total Expenditures 923,245 88,625 937,700 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 346,140 1,015,700 1,015,700 78,090 78,000 8.3% 8.3% Fund Balance, Beg. ofYear Revenues 923,245 937,700 Expenditures (923,245) (937~700) Fund Balance, End of Year 1,015,700 (1,015,700) CITY OF TEMECULA SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND 2000-01 MID-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET Total Revenues Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 00-01 00-01 00-01 Proposed % 99-00 YTD Current Proposed Increase Increase Actual ~ 12/31/00 Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 388,602 393,000 393,000 388,602 393,000 393,000 Fund Balance, Beg. of Year Revenues Expenditures Fund Balance, End of Year 393,000 393,000 GAS TAX FUND REVENUE DETAIL FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00,-01 Y'TD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 100 GAS TAX FUND ACTUALS YTD (~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDG.r REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4065 -Investment Interest 5,840 4,409 4,50C 98.00~ 7,500 3,000 66.7~ 4700 -Gas Tax 2106 209,901 97,300 213,50C 45.6% 230,000 16,500 7.7o,4 4701 -Gas Tax 2105 300,246 140,169 306,50C 45.7% 330,000 23,500 4702 -Gas Tax 2107 399,758 185,387 407,200 45.5% 440,700 33,500 8.2',~ 4704 -Gas Tax 2107.5 7,500 7,500 6,000 125.0% 7,500 1,500 25.0°,~ TOTAL GAS TAX FUND 923,245 434,765 937,700 46.4% 1,015,700 78~000 8.3'~ STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND REVENUE DETAIL FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 101 ST. TRANSPORTATION FUND ACTUALS YTD ~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDG'F REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE ¢065 -Investment Interest 5,190 10,00(: 10,000 ¢700 -Traffic Congestion Relief 383,412 383,00¢ 383,000 TOTAL ST. TRANSPOR.r. FUND 388~602 393~00C 393,000 midyear-REV 02/0612001 2000-01 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS MID-YEAR BUDGET CITY OF TEMECULA SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND EQUITY INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 2000-01 MID-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET 00-01 00-01 00-01 Proposed % 99-00 YTD Currant Proposed Increase Increase Actual (~ 12J31/00 Bud~let Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues 2,161,418 1,045,351 2,514,760 2,555,460 40,700 1.6% Total Expenditures by Fund: Insurance 533,159 134,104 468,760 468,760 Vehicles 107, 913 71,248 143,200 143,200 Information Systems 840,732 523,008 1,118,172 1,118,172 Support Services 235,765 97,328 261,560 261,560 Facilities 360~062 177,594 430,784 430,784 To~l Expend~ures 2,077,631 1,003~282 2,422,476 Excess of Revenues Over(Under) Expenditures 83,787 42,069 92,284 55,000 Operating Transfers In (Out): General Fund (Vehicles) General Fund (Information Systems) CIP (Insurance) Excess of Revenues and Operating Transfers Over (Under) Expenditures Retained Earnings, Beg. of Year Retained Earnings, End of Year 106,000 233,000 (400,000) 2,422,476 132,984 55,000 22,787 42,069 147,284 187,984 1,298~419 1,321,206 1,321,206 1,321,206 1,468,490 1,509,190 40,700 40,700 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS REVENUE DETAIL FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 300 iNSURANCE FUND ACTUALS YTD (~12/31/00 eRIC EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4062 -Recovery of Prior Year Expense 5,693 4065 -~nvestment Interest 69,879 41,816 60,00C 69.7% 75,000 15,000 25.0o,{ 4076 -Charges for Services 366,375 112,366 408,76C 27.5% 408,760 4086 -Special Event Insurance Fees 816 250 50C 50.0% 500 4095 -Claims Recovery 16,282 -1,274 TOTAL INSURANCE FUND 4591045 153~158 469~26£ 32.6% 484~260 15~000 ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 Y'rD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 310VEHICLES FUND ACTUALS YTD ~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4065 .investment Interest 866 3,070 5,000 5,000 4076 .Charges for Services 148,175 82,482 171,84C 48.0% 171,840 4090 .Operating Transfers in 106,000 55,000 55,00(3 55,000 4550 .Gain on Disposal of Assets 5,700 5,700 5,700 TOTAL VEHICLES FUND 255,041 146~252 226,84C 64.5% 237~540 10,700 4.7°~ ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 320 INFO SYSTEMS FUND ACTUALS YTD (~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4050 .Pay Telephone Revenue 478 274 40C 68.5% 400 4065 .Investment Interest 9,552 11,693 4,00C 292.3% 19,000 15,000 375.0°,~ 4076 -Charges for Services 945,494 522,558 1,175,33(3 44.5% 1,175,330 4090 .Operating Transfers In 233,000 4550 .Gain on Disposal of Assets TOTAL INFO SYSTEMS FUND 1~188~524 534,525 1,179,73C 45.3% 1,194,730 15,000 1.3°,~ ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 330 SUPPORT SERVICES FUND ACTUALS YTD ~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4065 -investment Interest 9,074 5,624 8,000 70.3% 8,000 4076 -Charges for Services 224,569 91,30S 258,190 35.4% 258,190 4550 .Gain on Disposal of Assets 6,894 TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES FUN 240~537 96~933 266~190 36.4% 266~190 ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 340 FACILITIES FUND ACTUALS YTO (~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4065 -Investment Interest 3,294 2,076 3,00(3 69.2% 3,000 4076 -Charges for Services 353,977 167,407 424,74C 39.4% 424,740 TOTAL FACILITIES FUND 357,271 169~483 427,74C 39.6% 427,740 Ol midyear-REV 02/06/2001 ITEM 7 APPROVAL ~ CITY AT-'~-~--E Y ~-~Z-)/O ~4~~- FINANCE DIRECTO..E~.~ ,/~ CITY MANAGER (~/ '" TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council ¢.¢,~usan W. Jones t,~ity Clerk/Director of Support Services February 13. 2001 Rescheduling of March 13, 2001 City Council Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Clerk to re-schedule the regular City Council Meeting of March 13, 2001 to March 6, 2001 and to perform the appropriate postings and noticing requirements of the Government Code. BACKGROUND: It has been recommended by members of the City Council to reschedule the meeting of March 13, 2001 to March 6, 2001, since four members of the City Council; Mayor Comerchero, Mayor Pro Tern Roberts, Councilman Naggar and Councilman Stone will be attending the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference in Washington, D.C. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Agenda Reports\Meeting Schedule ITEM 8 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIR. OF FIN3~q'CE~ CITY MANAGER City Manager/City Council Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services February 13, 2001 Microsoft Software Licenses Prepared by: Thomas Hafeli, Information Systems Administrator Gus Papagolos, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the purchase of 180 licenses of Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional from Ikon Office Solutions for the total amount of $27,151.28. DISCUSSION: The City is currently using Windows 98 as the primary desktop operating system on its workstations. Windows 2000 Professional includes fundamental improvements, such as modifications to the operating system core to prevent crashes and the abilitY for the operating system to repair itself, that make it the most reliable desktop operating system Microsoft has ever produced. On comparative reliability tests conducted by ZD Labs, the average system uptime of Windows 2000 Professional was over 50 times that of Windows 98. In addition, Windows 98 has many noted security issues and is being discontinued by Microsoft as a business operating system. Windows 2000 Professional is a requirement for the upcoming installation of Eden InForum Gold financial application, and is necessary for all workstations that will be accessing Eden InForum Gold. Both Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional is available on the State of California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) under information technology contract. The competitively, quoted price is provided by an authorized CMAS contractor. Under this agreement it is within the City's discretion to take advantage of the pricing on another governmental entity contract. The contract is made available for use by State of California agencies and any city, county or local governmental agency empowered to expend public funds. Therefore, this purchase is exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Staff's research has determined that the CMAS price is the most competitive and that there are no local venders on the CMAS suppliers list. Also, it has been determined that the CMAS program is consistent with the City's procurement policies and regulations and that it is used by many Cities as an industry standard. The below information details the purchase of Microsoft licenses from IKON Office Solutions: Contractor Item Price IKON Office Solutions Windows Pro 2000 $27,151.28 MicroAge of Sacramento Windows Pro 2000 $28,260.45 FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds were appropriated in the 2000-01 Fiscal Year Budget for the Information Services internal Services fund. Attachment: IKON Office Solutions Quote Department of General Services ' Procurement Division · P.O. Box 942804 SaCramento, CA 94204-0001 State of ,California MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 .IKON Office Solutions TeChnology Services, Inc. 3-98-70.,0742A - Brand-3CO.M Brand-Cisco Brand-Compaq Brand-Hewlett Packard (HP) Brand-IBM Brand-Microsoft Brand-NEC Brand-Network Associates Inc Brand-aMC Brand-Tripplite. ' ..... Brand-V ewsonjc . CONTRACT NUMBER: GSA* TERM: 3-98.70-0742A 4/1/1996 throu, gh 3./31/2002 STATEWIDE DISTRIBUTION: 'or other eimller Sehedulas as defined by CMA~; Unit CMA~ Schedule A - GSA #GS-35F.4120D Government Technology Services, Inc. (GTSI), Includes Modifications through #210 This renewal ~upplement replaces In Its entirety IKON Office Solutions Technology Services, Inc.'a existing California Multiple Award Schedule (CMA$) Which expired on Marsh 31, 2000. The most current contract provisions, ordsrlng Instructions, policies, an,d, CMA$ terms' and cohdltlons applicable to this CMAS contract are Incorporated herein. ' ii [= ' ; ::: (" Date: CAROL McCOLLUM, Program Analyst, California Multiple Award Schedule Unit Contact Information: Christophe~ C. Rill Outside Sales Professional (909)799-1999 FAX No: (909)799-9318 / Bill J. Stahley In~ld~ Sale~ Pro f~s.~lOnal (909)799-1999 Bill To: CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. BOX 9033 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA , CA 925899033 CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. BOX 9033 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA , CA 925899033 Quote: 9303-001 Confidential: 02/05/2001 180 B2301166 No MOLP GVT WIN PRO 2000 ENGPUP OLP NL 140.00 25,200.00 1 B2300096 No WWF IVIED WIN PRO 2000 ENG CD W/BOOT DISKS 26.00 26.00 1 B2300087 No WWF DOC WIN PRO 2000 ENG DOCKIT 31.00 31.00 Sub-Total: 25,257.00 Tax: 1,894.28 I Total: $27,151.281 If a purchase order is not required for payment by your company, an authorized signature below signifies acceptance of the offer in lieu of a formal purchase order. By: Title: Date: The Way Business Gets Communicated Page: 1 ITEM 9 APPROVAI,,.~,..,.~ ,/~ CITY ATTORNEY DIR,OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER / TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager February 13, 2001 Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Consulting Services between the City of Temecula and Sandra Massa-Lavitt. PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with Sandra Massa-Lavitt for consulting services for $25,000 for a total contract amount of $50,000. BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Growth Management Action Plan on March 21, 2000. One of the action items of the plan was to hire a project consultant to completely interface and represent the City of Temecula's interest in every facet of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). Sandra Massa-Lavitt was retained to provide these services to the City of Temecula on a part time basis. She has experience working for several Riverside County jurisdictions at the planning director level and is familiar with many the governmental staff members within western Riverside County. Sandra's main duty has been to attend a multitude of advisory committee meetings for the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). These Advisory Committees generally meet separately once a month to allow the complete membership a chance to vote on the various issues that are being refined by two or three subcommittees that meet on a weekly basis. Currently the GPAC has accelerated its Advisory Committee meeting schedule to twice a month to keep pace with the workload and to meet the time constraints mandated by the Board of Supervisors. Subcommittees of the GPAC and CETAP are generally held once a week to iron out the issues in a working group atmosphere. These subcommittees generally have fewer members in attendance, which lends itself to working closely to arrive at solutions to the myriad of issues generated by the General Plan process. The CETAP Advisory Committee is meeting once a month with subcommittees meeting in joint session with the GPAC on related issues. In addition to participating in the Advisory Committee activities, Sandra attends numerous ancillary RCIP meetings and work sessions on issues that affect the City. Minutes are prepared after each Advisory Committee meeting and a cumulative summary is prepared for the City's web site on a regular basis. Sandra also provides weekly briefings to the Deputy City Manager and senior staff of the Community Development Department regarding RClP issues of concern to the City. The average billing from Sandra is less than fifteen hours per pay period. R:lBROWNS~amendment 2000 to sm-I contract cc rept.doc The original contract for $25,000 approved by the City Manager is nearly depleted and an amendment is necessary to insure funding for continued attendance at the various RCiP proceedings. No change in the hourly rate is being proposed. Contracts with a cumulative value in excess of $25,000 must be approved by the City Council. Accordingly, this contract amendment of $25, 000 for a total contract amount of $50,000 is brought forward for Council consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: Position funded in 2000-2001 FY budget under Account No. 001-161-999-5248, RCIP Consultant Assistance. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment to Contract Dated February 13, 2001 Original Contract Dated July 1,2000 R:~BROWNS~amendrnent 2000 to srn-I contract cc rept.doc 2 First Amendment to Contract Dated February 13, 2001 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETVVEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND Sandra Massa-Lavitt THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of February 13, 2001 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Sandra Massa-Lavitt ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set fodh herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On July 1, 2000 the City and Consultant entered into that cedain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Consultant Services" ("Agreement"). B. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set fodh in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 (a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed (Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents) $50,000.00 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended to read it its entirety as follows: The contractual services shall be limited to attendance at formal and informal meetings related to the Riverside County Integrated Project proceedings in any of several venues; attendance and oral presentations at Temecula City Council meetings; all of the preceding as required by the Community Development Department as directed by the Deputy City Manager. Hourly rate shall be $65.00 per hour plus any direct expenses incurred by research with other agencies. Mileage for meeting attendance will be reimbursed at the standard city rate. Any change in scope requiring auto insurance or Errors & Omissions Insurance coverage shall require amendments to the basic agreement. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. R:\BROWNS~amendment 2000 to sm-I contract.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA BY: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: BY: Susan W. Jones, CMO City Clerk Approved As to Form: BY: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT BY: NAME: TITLE: BY: NAME: TITLE: R:\BROWNS~arpendment 2000 to sm-I contract.doc 2 Original Contract Dated July1, 2000 CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES (SANDRA MASSA-LAVlTT) THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of July 1, 2000, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Sandra Massa-Lavitt, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2000, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2001, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit A other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Twenty-five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement. c. Consultant will submit invoices semi-monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth 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 as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. R:\PAPAGG~AGREEMTS\Sandra Massa-Lavitt Contract 2001.doc 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a podion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Ag['eement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall ' constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by wdtten notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City-Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (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 Consultant 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. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be cleady identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents 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 R:\PAPAGGkAGREEMTS\Sandra Massa-Lavitt Contract 2001,doc 2 of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. ~ ' P~~'L~. c_e sha~? on~ fe ' esslon. ~ b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. R:\PAPAGG~AGREEMTS\Sandra Massa-Lavitt Contract 2001.doc 3 (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) The City, 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 Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied ........... or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 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) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. R:\PAPAGGLa. GREEMTS\$andra Massa-Lavit~ Contract 2001.dec 4 e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of CoveraRe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provia~;d"b~ the.C~t~..--:AII endorsements'are to be'~'e(~ived ah-d approved by.the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. .......... 10...INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall · '~ =~not~nc~'~r~lTave-the puwerlo-incaFany~debt, obligafion-or:liabitity whatever against City, or,bind ..... - City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 1t. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, 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 Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed R:\PAPAGG\AGREEMTS\Sandra Massa-Lavil~ Contract 2001.doc 5 thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. t3. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 ........ Temecula, California 92589-9033 .43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention:-- City Manager To Consultant: Sandra Massa-Lavitt 74040 Old Prospector Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 340-2990 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Sandra Massa-Lavitt shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Sandra Massa-Lavitt may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Sandra Massa-Lavitt from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's .... employ, the City shall have-the option .to-immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning R:LOAPAGGLa. GREEMT$\Sandra Massa-Lavit~ Contrac~ 2001.doe 6 this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula s~all liar6 any financial inter~st,' direc{~0r in-direct~in ttii~-A~ree~nent, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this project. Contractor further- agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agr~m~t-15~sed solel]~'~-~nth~ re-p/-~Sentation§ set"forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalfSf Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AgreemenLto be executed the day and year first above written. §haw[~ Nelson, City Manager Attest: R:\PAPAGG~AGREEMTS\Sandra Massa-Lavit~ Contract 2001.doc 7 Approved As to Form: CONSULTANT By: Title; By: Name: Title: (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) R:~P^PAGG~AGREENITS\$andra Massa-Lavitt Conb~act 2001.doc EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK And PAYMENT SCHEDULE The contractual services shall be limited to attendance at formal and informal meetings related to the Riverside County Integrated Plan process in any of several venues; research of related materials or historical data; preparation of reports and summaries of meetings; attendance and oral presentations at Temecula City Council meetings; all of the preceeding as required by the Community Development Depadment as directed by the Deputy City Manager. Hourly rate shall be $65.00 per hour plus any direct expenses incurred by research with other agencies. Mileage for meeting attendance will be reimbursed at the standard city rate. Any change in scope requiring auto insurance.or Errors & Omissions Insurance coverage shall require amendments to the basic agreement. X\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\Depts',PLANNING\HooverI~Sandra Massa Lavitt agreement.doc 1 Formal Notice of Rate Increase From Consultant SANDRA MASSA-LAVITT 74-040 OLD PROSPECTOR TRAIL PALM DESERT, CA 92260 December 1, 2000 Gary Thornhill Deputy City Manager City of Temecula P. O. Box 9033' Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Gary: This letter is formal notice that on January 1, 2001, my hourly rates for services to the City of Temecula will increase from $65.00 per hour to $70.00 per hour, requiring an amendment to our contract. Sincerely, 'Sandra Massa-Lavitt FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND Sandra Massa-Lavitt THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of January 1, 2001 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City" and Sandra Massa-Lavitt ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: A. On July 1,2000 the City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for Consultant Services" ("Agreement"). Amendment. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this 2. Section 4 (a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed an additional amount of twenty five thousand ($25,000) dollars. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amended amount ($25,000) and not to exceed $2,500. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amount not to exceed a total of fifty two thousand five hundred dollars ($52,500) and in the manner as agreed by City Council and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. 3. Exhibit__ (insert which exhibit is being added or replaced) to the Agreement is hereby deleted from the Agreement and in its place a new Exhibit __ is added to the Agreement as set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. R:IPAPAGGMGREEMTSISANDRA MA$~-LdVITI'AMENDMEN~DOC 1 ITEM 10 APPROVAL · , , ,'~'~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER~c~/- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Grant M. Yates, Assistant to the City Manager February 13, 2001 2001 Workers' Compensation Coverage Annual Renewal PREPARED BY: Denise Lanier, Human Resources Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council select State Compensation Insurance Fund to · become the City's new Employee Workers' Compensation Insurance, for Plan Year 2001. BACKGROUND: Workers' Compensation Insurance in California continues to undergo dramatic changes, both in the areas of availability and cost to the insurance buyer. Fueled by "open rating" market competition and increases in claims costs over the past six years, carriers providing workers' compensation coverage have experienced such negative results, that the second largest writer in California, Superior National, is in liquidation and the third, Fremont Compensation, is under Regulatory Supervision. Other carriers have either seen their ratings reduced and/or their surpluses so impacted as to require curtailing or severely reducing writings. The progression of the problems facing the California Workers' Compensation Industry have included: · Estimated Ultimate Losses per Indemnity Claim increasing from 1993 to 1999 = 80%. · Rate levels decreasing from 1993 to 1999 (indexed to 1989%) -- 47% (due to open rating competition). · Loss Ratios (losses divided by premium) up from 57% in 1995 to 99% in 1999 and expecting to be over 110% for 2000. · Combining Loss and Expense ratios up from 85% in 1993 to 153% in 1999 (severe impact on equity) and the ability of carriers to provide coverage to California's employers. In addition to the general problems of declining availability and increases in pricing, the City, specifically, faces the unwillingness of many carriers to insure municipal workers' compensation, even under normal market conditions. Finally, the City is just completing its first year of coverage with Insurance Company of the West (ICW), and our claims experience has been high, with a loss ratio at approximately 200%. State Compensation Insurance Fund was the City's workers' compensation provider from incorporation through 1995 with our premium peaking in 1993 at $335,000. Listed below are the annual workers' compensation rates since the City was able to compete in the workers' compensation insurance open market: 1996 Cai Comp $ 79,825 1997 Cai Comp $ 74,955 1998 Cai Comp $ 70,096 1999 Cai Comp $ 55,681 2000 ICW $ 52,657 The City's insurance broker, Mike Bush of CAL-SURANCE Associates, Inc., requested thirteen (13) market quotes. Mr. Bush was allowed to quote components in an effort to ensure that the market carriers knew the City was serious about obtaining the best coverage at the lowest rate. A majority of the 13 carriers declined to quote on the City's coverage. Mr. Bush did receive quotes from: American International Group Companies (American Home), Argonaut Insurance Company, and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The.rates listed below represent the quotes for the 2001 Workers' Compensation Plan Year (2/01/01 - 1/31/02): American Home Argonaut Insurance Company State Comp. Insurance Fund $2~0,000 $241,000 $'138,000 Based on the above listed quotes, City staff recommends the City's new workers' compensation coverage be awarded to State Compensation Insurance fund, for the 2001 Plan Year. The State Compensation Insurance Fund quote reflects the maximum amount for the contract year and may be lower depending on actual payroll. Staff believes the quote reflects the best that can be expected for the 2001 contract year. Our Loss Prevention Program will remain under the leadership of the City's Safety Committee. In addition, the experience modification (determined by the relationship of City claim costs to industry- wide standards using the figures from our 1999 contract year) will decrease from the current 87% to 68%, which continues to be an excellent rating. FISCAL IMPACT: The State Compensation Insurance Fund quote will impact the City by a total of $35,560 for the upcoming 2001 Plan Year. Funds are available in the operating budget to fund this policy. Maximum amount of quote maybe less based on actual payroll ITEM 11 CITY ATTORNEY BIB.OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager February 13, 2001 Agreement for Consulting Services Between the City of Temecula and PELA/THE ELLIOTT GROUP PREPARED BY: Stephen Brown, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Contract with PELA/THE ELLIOTT GROUP for landscape plancheck and inspection consulting services in the amount of $74,000.00. BACKGROUND: The Community Development Department's Planning Division has for the past seven years utilized the services of a consultant as an extension of staff to provide landscape review and inspection services. Over that period of time, the depadment has retained the services of PELA/THE ELLIOTT GROUP to perform these services. Their contract expired on January 12, 2001. This contract has been prepared to terminate at the end of this (2000-2001) fiscal year. A second contract will be prepared that will coincide with the next (2001-2002) fiscal year budget, thus eliminating iterative process of forwarding numerous contract extensions to the City Council. This method of having contracts start at the fiscal year is used extensively by other departments within the City. The Planning Department requested proposals from eight landscape architectural firms in the western Riverside County area to allow other contractors a chance to bid on continuing the currant service. The Department received only one response, which was from the current contractor, PELA/THE ELLIOTT GROUP. §taffworked with PELA/THE ELLIOTT GROUP to create a scope of services that addresses the current needs of the Planning Department's design review process. As a new feature, the scope of services includes attendance at the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission if necessary. The fees associated with the scope of services are not proposed to increase over those presently charged. Since meeting attendance is a new feature, the contractor will charge a flat fee of $225.00 for the entire meeting regardless of how many cases are discussed. Staff would like to note that the landscape review services are provided on a cost recovery basis. The Planning Department requests a line item during the City's annual budget process to fund the R:\BROWNS\landscape\Staff Report CC.doc 1 on-going task of landscape review. The landscape contractor invoices the City and is paid from the line item. Fees paid by the applicant during the development review process are paid to the general fund, which offsets the invoiced amounts paid by the City to the landscape contractor. In the past, PELA/THE ELLIOTT GROUP was always available to act as a resource for City Staff. Moreover, the contractor provided numerous consultations with staff regarding specific projects. This resource was provided at no additional cost to the City. PELA/THE ELLIOTT GROUP has agreed to make themselves available and proposes to continue providing this same service to City Staff at no charge. FISCAL IMPACT: Contract funded in 2000-2001 FY budget under Account No. 161-999-5250, (Elliott Group-Landscape Services) ATTACHMENTS: City of Temecula Agreement for Consulting Services (Landscape Plancheck and Inspection) R:\BROWNS\landscape\Staff Report CC.doc 2 CITY OF TEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES (LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK AND INSPECTION) THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of February 13, 2001, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and PELA/The Elliott Group, ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set fodh herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on February 13, 2001, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2001, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars and no Cents ($ 74,000.00) for the term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth 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 as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (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 Consultant 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 fudher notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents 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 Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability adsing out of the negligence of the City. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage) One million ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-lnsurad Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) (2) '(3) (4) (5) The City, 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 Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Any failure to comply with repoding or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 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) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Covera,qe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, 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 Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcentractors, shall not without wdtten authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the dght, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in wdting and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: To Consultant: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager PELA/The Elliott Group 4883 Brockton Avenue Riverside, CA 92506 Attn: Michael G. Elliott 14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only Michael G. Elliott shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Michael G. Elliott may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Michael G. EIliott from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's employ, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice pedod. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its dghts under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Coud's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\BROWNS\landscape\landscape services agreement.doc Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT By:. Name: Title: By:. Name: Title: (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Scope of Work Development Review Committee Review Upon notification from the Community Development Department that landscape plans are ready for review, the contractor will pick up plans at the City. If desired by the City, plans can be mailed to contractor's office. Two sets of landscape plans along with one copy of the conceptual grading plan, architectural site plan and architectural elevations will be transmitted to the contractor so that it can be insured that landscaping is compatible with the architecture and appropriate for the proposed grading. The contractor may be required to meet with the project planner to discuss the project prior to beginning the review. This option will be left up to the individual planner. The contractor will review the plans verifying consistency with the City Development Code and other Ordinances in effect. A site visit will be performed to become familiar with the site and surrounding area. One set of plans will be redlined with comments notifying the applicant of necessary revisions to be made to bring the plans into conformance with City requirements. Items not addressed in the City Development Code or applicable Ordinances but that are outside of professional norms will also be marked for explanations from the applicant. Plans will be crosschecked against the architectural and grading plans. The contractor will return one set of redlined plans along with plan check comments to the project planner. Plan check comments will also be sent to the project planner via e-mail for use in formulating reports back to the applicant. One set of plans will be kept on file at the contractor's office so that if questions arise from either the project planner or the applicant, the contractor with full knowledge of the project can provide answers. On larger projects where many comments are made, the contractor shall provide a second review, if necessary, based on the project planners direction to insure that plans have been revised to be in conformance with City requirements. Comments should be returned to the project planner within ten calendar days after receipt of the landscape plans but in no case later than two weeks after notification of plan pick up. Multiple reviews shall not be covered under the initial conceptual review cost. Additional conceptual reviews beyond the first review shall be billed at the flat rate fee indicated on Exhibit B "Payment Rates and Schedule." R:XBROWNSXlandscape~r oposal Temecula Plan Check Services- Scope of Services2.doc Construction Documents Review Upon notification from the Community Development Department that construction landscape plans are ready for review, the contractor will pick up plans at the City. If desired by the City, plans can be mailed to the contractor's office. Two sets of landscape construction plans along with one copy of the approved conceptual landscape plan, conditions of approval, and final precise grading plan will be transmitted to the contractor. The contractor will review the plans verifying consistency with the City Development Code, other Ordinances in effect, the approved conceptual landscape plan and conditions of approval. One set of plans will be redlined with comments notifying the applicant of necessary revisions to be made to bdng the plans into conformance with City requirements and the approved landscape plan. Items not addressed in the City Development Code or applicable Ordinances but that are outside of professional norms will also be marked for explanations from the applicant. Plans will be crosschecked against the final precise grading plans. The contractor will return one set of redlined plans along with plan check comments to the project planner. Plan check comments will also be sent to the project planner via e-mail for use in formulating reports back to the applicant. One set of plans will be kept on file at the contractor's office so that if questions arise from either the project planner or the applicant, the contractor with full knowledge of the project can provide answers. Once the applicant has resubmitted revisions, the contractor will pick up the plans at the City and re-check them for conformance. Two sets of revised plans along with a cost estimate of the landscape work will be needed. Should all revisions have been made and all questions answered, the plans will be returned to the project planner with a letter recommending approval. If all revisions are not made, one set of plans will be redlined again and returned to the applicant a second time for revisions. This process will continue until the plans are brought into conformance with City standards, professional norms, and approved landscape plans. The contractor will review the cost estimate and where appropriate, the project planner will be notified that the estimate is appropriate for required bonding requirements. Plan checks beyond the third check will be billed a the rate indicated on Exhibit B "Payment Rates and Schedule." The contractor shall provide a unit cost breakdown for applicants to use in preparing their cost estimates. This is to insure that below market costs are not provided that could cost the City money if the project fails to be completed and the City is forced to collect on bonds. Comments/redlines should generally be returned to the project planner within one week and in no case later than two weeks after notification of plan pick up. Landscape Inspection Once notified that the applicant has completed the landscape installation, the contractor will provide a landscape construction inspection in order to insure implementation is in conformance with the approved plans. ^ written report will be provided to the project planner after each inspection indicating the status. If desired by the project planner, the contractor will send a copy of the report to the applicant/contractor so that they will know which items need correction or completion. Each landscape inspection will be billed at the rate indicated on Exhibit B "Payment Rates and Schedule." Landscape Architectural Resources The contractor shall be available to act as a resource for City staff responding to general questions or questions regarding specific projects. Should staff require other tasks to be performed, the contractor shall provide services based on the attached exhibit B of "Payment Rates and Schedule" or a mutually agreed upon fiat fee. Attendance at Meetings The Principal Landscape Architect shall be available attend Development Review Committee and Planning Commission meetings as requested by City of Temecula Planning Staff based on the attached exhibit B of "Payment Rates and Schedule". EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE Following is the breakdown of fees proposed for the plan check and inspection services outlined in the scope of work. These fees are based on present insurance requirements of $1.000,000.00 for errors and omissions. Conceptual Plan Review FLAT FEE OF $200.00 The following fees are based on reviewing a maximum of 3 submittals from the applicant. Should additional reviews be necessary they will be charged at the rate of $80.00 per sheet. SQUARE FOOTAGE Of PROJECT 0 - 10,000 10,001 - 25,000 25,001 - 100 000 100,001 - 135 000 135,001 - 165 000 165,001.- 200 000 200,001 - 250 000 250,001 - 300 000 300,001 - 350 000 350,001 - 400 000 400,001 & up Plan checks beyond the 3r" Check FLAT PLAN CHECK FEE $540 $810 $1,080 $1,350 $1,620 $1,890 $2,160 $2,430 $2,700 $2,970 $2,970 +.0075for each sq. ff. above 400,000 sq. ff. $80.00/sheet Landscape Inspection FLAT FEE OF $225.00NISIT We are always available to act as a resource for City staff. Over the past 8 years working with the City we have provided numerous consultations with staff responding to general questions or questions regarding specific projects. This resource has been provided at no additional cost to the City. We will continue to make ourselves available and propose to provide these same resources to City staff at no charge. Should staff require other tasks to be performed we will be happy to provide services based on our hourly rates or a mutually agreed upon fiat fee based on the scope of work. _~11 i ~ ~ I ~7;T ~ [~d ::f:~l I ~,'~ I q :i i I ~ [cT.~ Attendance at Development Review Committee and Planning Commission meetings will be performed at the fiat fee rate of $225/meeting. ITEM 12 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE_,~j(~,~_ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council ~Villiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2001 Parcel Map No. 29642, Located north of Nicolas Road and west of Winchester Road PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve 1) Parcel Map No. 29642 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval 2) Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as security for the agreement. BACKGROUND: Parcel Map No. 29642 is two (2) parcel subdivision located north of Nicolas Road and west of Winchester Road. Parcel 2 currently is being developed as The Fountains, a senior apartment project. The off-site street improvements are in place. On April 20, 2000, the Planning Director for the City of Temecula approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 29642, with the appropriate condition of approvals. This final map is in conformance with the approved tentative map. The approval of a final subdivision map, which substantially complies with the previously approved tentative map is a mandatory ministerial act under State law. The following fees have been deferred for Parcel Map No. 29642: Development Impact Fee due prior to issuance of a building permit. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Development Fee Checklist Fees & Securities Report Project Vicinity Map Parcel Map No. 29642 1 r:\agdrpt~000\1219\tr28482.rnap CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO. PM 29642 Staff reviewed the following fees relative to their applicability to this project. FEE Flood Control (ADP) Development Impact Fee CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Paid To be paid prior to issuance of a building permit 2 r:\agdrpt~2000\1219\tr28482.map CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 29642 DATE: February 13, 2001 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY SECURITY Street and Drainage $ 0 $ 0 Water $ 0 $ 0 Sewer $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL $ 0 $ 0 Monument $ 4,200 DEVELOPMENT FEES City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFCD (ADP) Fee Development Impact Fee SERVICE FEES Planning Fee Comprehensive Transportation Plan Plan Check Fee Monument Inspection Fee Fees Paid to Date Balance of Fees Due $ 0.00 $ Paid $ T.B.D. $ 56.00 $ 4.00 $ 790.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,100.00 $ o.oo 3 r:\agdrpt~2000\1219\tr28482,map VICINITY MAP NTS SITE 0 100 200 LOT A NICOLAS ROAD N 77'49'04' ~- C~ 552.64'-- W=28' Parcel Map No. 29642 ITEM 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANC~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council .,'~J~/William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2001 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Installation of a Traffic Signal at Margarita Road & Stonewood Road, Project No. PW00-18 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the installation of a Traffic Signal at Margarita Road & Stonewood Road, Project No. PW00-18. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved an installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Margarita Road and Stonewood Road in the FY2000-01 Capital Improvement Program budget. This project will provide a fully actuated traffic signal along with new access ramps and an interconnect system to both Solana Way and Moraga Road. The Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $100,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a Capital Improvement Project and is funded through Development Impact Fees - Traffic Signals. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Location 2. Project Description 1 r:~agdrptt2001\0213~pwO0-18,bid ITEM 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~/./2P~ DIRECTOR OF FINAN~_/~ CITY MANAGER (.~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council /V~,,~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2001 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Bids for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program, Project No. PW01-03 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit bids for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion Program, Project No. PW01-03. BACKGROUND: At the January 9, 2001 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-02 approving a funding agreement between the State of California Energy Commission (CEC) and the City of Temecula designating the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula to implement and carry out the purposes of the grant award of $140,870 to replace incandescent traffic signal lights with Light Emitting Diode (LED) at each traffic signal and intersection within the City of Temecula. The California Energy Commission has implemented this retrofit rebate program to all state, local and regional agencies to encourage the replacement of incandescent lights with those using LED in an effort to reduce peak electricity demands throughout the State of California. This program will provide funding for approximately 45% of our replacement costs associated with each traffic signal and intersection within our City. The grant award amount is $140,870.00; our costs ara $174,130.00 for total project cost of $315,000.00. The energy cost savings are substantial and our overall estimated savings as a result of replacement of the traffic signal incandescent lights with LED is approximately $93,552.00 per year. This savings would provide a project payback in less than two (2) years. The Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $315,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is funded by a State of California Energy Commission grant in the amount of $140,870.00 and Capital Project Reserves. The total amount available for this project is $315,870. ATTACHMENTS: None 1 ITEM 15 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY . II D,RECTOR OF F'N -N II C TY MANACER fi,'~/l~/illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2001 Award of Construction Contract for the Low Flow Crossing @ Via Montezuma, Project No. PW99-15 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Councih Award a contract for the Low Flow Crossing @ ViaMontezuma, Project No. PW99-15 to Terra-Cai Construction, Inc. for $404,587.70, contingent upon receiving resource agency permits and approved CEQA clearance, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $40,458.77, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount. Transfer $130,000 of Capital Reserves from the Pavement Management System Project to the Low-Flow Crossing @ Via Montezuma, Project PW99-15. BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2000, the City Council approved the plans and specifications, and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids. We are currently working on a number of projects to improve traffic circulation in the City. Two of these projects involve constructing crossings of Murrieta Creek at Rancho Way and at Avenida Alvarado. A specific alignment study for Rancho Way is in its final stage. The crossing at Avenida Alvarado will entail alignment studies and design of an extension of Overland Drive westerly to Diaz Road. A location for a third crossing over Murrieta Creek between Winchester Road and the northern City Limits is also being studied. The Circulation Element indicates that all three (3) identified Murrieta Creek crossings aro needed for adequate level of traffic flow. Due to the complexity and potential costs of the three (3) projects identified, it will take many years for these projects to be constructed. The traffic relief we want to provide to motorists in Temecula is more immediate. A Iow flow crossing will give the City the immediate traffic relief it needs. Also, this Iow flow has the potential to be an alternative route for motorist when the Rancho California Road Bridge is being widened. A model of the traffic Circulation Element was done with an assumption of a crossing at Via Montezuma (between Winchester Road and Rancho California Road). This model showed that constructing a Murrieta Creek crossing at Via Montezuma would reduce traffic congestion at Winchester Road and at Rancho California Road. 1 This in-house design is proposing to construct an interim two-lane road from Diaz Road west of Murrieta creek, down the bottom of the creek and then back up to join the intersection of Del Rio Road and Via Montezuma east of the creek..This road will be constructed with asphalt and base materials, except at the channel bottom where concrete will be installed along with riprap. At its current condition, Via Montezuma, between Del Rio and Jefferson, needs rehabilitation. This requirement will be exacerbated once the Iow-flow is constructed due to the fact that the number of vehicles using this segment of the road will increase dramatically. The Iow-flow project scope of work was increased to include pavement rehabilitation of Via Montezuma from Del Rio Road to Jefferson Avenue so the road can withstand the increased traffic volumes. To cover these additional costs, a transfer of $130,000 will be required from the Pavement Management System project account to the Low-Flow @ Via Montezuma project account. We are currently working with Riverside County Flood Control District, the Murrieta Creek property owners at this location, to finalize a corporative agreement for the construction and maintenance of the proposed road. As soon as the agreement is complete, staff will present it to the City Council for approval. We have also contracted with Tom Dodson and Associates, an environmental consultant, to assist us with the environmental process for this project. We started the process of to have this project approved and obtaining the necessary permits and certifications from the various regulatory agencies. These agencies include U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Once these agencies approve the project, construction of the Iow-flow crossing will start. Time is of the essence in this project. Awarding prior to obtaining the necessary environmental permits is required due to the restrictions for clearing Murrieta Creek. Environmental regulations limit the time for the initial clearing of the creek to October 15 thru March 15. Completing the process of awarding and executing a contract for the construction of the Iow-flow crossing will put us in a position where we can start construction as soon as the necessary environmental permits are issued. Twenty-one (21) bids were received and publicly opened on Januray 30, 2001 and results were as follows: 1. Terra-Cai Construction, Inc .......................................................................... $404,587.70 2. Harmon & Associates, Inc. DBA Riverside Construction Co ........................ $411,184.00 3. McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc ......................................................... $417,760.00 4. Hubbs & Ferrante ......................................................................................... $417,799.30 5. Vance Corporation ....................................................................................... $439,612.85 6. KAS Equipment & Rental, Inc ...................................................................... $439,824.50 7. Granite Construction Company .................................................................... $464,030.00 8. Summit Contracting ...................................................................................... $468,000.00 9. KEC Engineering .......................................................................................... $468,684.00 10. Miramar Construction, Inc ............................................................................ $468,870.00 11. H&H General Contractors, Inc ..................................................................... $470,829.00 12. E.L.Yeager Construction Company, Inc ....................................................... $480,000.00 13. Sean Malek Engineering & Construction, Inc ............................................... $488,945.55 14. GCI Construction, Inc ................................................................................... $489,982.25 15. J.D. Stine Constructors, Inc ......................................................................... $493,127.00 16. Beador Construction Company .................................................................... $504,000.00 17. Mitchell Pacific Constructors, Inc ................................................................. $519,375.50 18. 4-Con Engineering, Inc ................................................................................ $522,576.00 19. Geoscene Construction, Inc ......................................................................... $529,434.05 20. Templeton Engineering, Inc ......................................................................... $587,967.85 21. Denbore Engineering & Construction ........................................................... $678,686.00 2 The Engineer's estimate for this project is $485,000. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found Terra-Cai Construction, Inc. of Baldwin Park, California to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. Terra-Cai Construction, Inc. was the construction contractor for both the Winchester Creek Park and the Duck Pond. Staff has contacted references and determined that Terra-Cai Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily performed similar type of work in the past. The specifications allow Forty (40) working days for completion of this project. Work is expected to begin once we obtain approvals from the regulatory agencies. A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office. FISCAL IMPACT: The Murrieta Creek Interim Low Flow Crossing at Via Montezuma, Project No PW99-15, is a Capital Improvement Project funded through Capital Reserves, Account No. 210-165-707-5804. Adequate funds are available for the transfer of $130,000 from Pavement Management System Account #210-165-655-5804 to the Low-Flow @ Via Montezuma, Project PW99-15, Account #210-165-707-5804 due to the increased scope of work to rehabilitate Via Montezuma is required. The total construction cost is $445,046.47, which includes the contract amount of $404,587.70 plus 10% contingency of $40,458.77. ATTACHMENT: 1. Project Location 2. Project Description 3. Contract 3 CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. PW99-15 LOW FLOW CROSSING A T VIA MONTEZUMA THiS CONTRACT, made and entered into the '13th day of February, 2001 ,by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Terra-Cai Construction, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1 .a. Condition Precedents to City's obligations under this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees and acknowledges that it shall not have any rights to compensation or to enforce the performance of any term or provision of this CONTRACT, in whole or part, unless and until the following conditions precedents have occurred to the satisfaction of CITY: City has obtained any and all permits, authorizations, approvals or similar entitlement from any governmental agency or office with jurisdiction over the subject matter of this CONTRACT; and City has obtained any and all necessary environmental clearances under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended and/or the National Environmental Protection Act. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PW99-15, LOW FLOW CROSSING AT VIA MONTEZUMA, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Most Recent Edition) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW99-15, LOW FLOW CROSSING AT VIA MONTEZUMA. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: Building New, Incorporated 3055 Overland Avenue Los Angeles, California 90034 (213) 202-7775 CONTRACT CA-1 r:~cip~pw99\pw99-15\Contract 2 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials,' and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications, individually and collectively ("Project Specific Documents) for PROJECT NO. PW99-15, LOW FLOW CROSSING AT VIA MONTEZUMA. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the Project Specific Documents, the Project Specific Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PROJECT NO. PW99-15, LOW FLOW CROSSING AT VIA MONTEZUMA All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Standard Specifications and the Project Specific Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: FOUR HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN DOLLARS and SEVENTY CENTS ($404,587.70), the total amount of the base bid. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed forty (40) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed, if any, by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. CONTRACT CA-2 n~cip~)w99~pw99-15\Co n~act 2 6. PAYMENTS LUMP SUM BID SCEHDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. CONTRACT CA-3 r:~cip~pw99~ow99-15\Contract 2 10. 11. WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion is recorded, the CITY shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure warranty performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the following schedule: CONTRACT AMOUNT $25,000 0 $75,000 RETENTION PERIOD RETENTION PERCENTAGE 180 days 3% $75,00- $500,000 180 days $2,250 + 2% of amount in excess of $75,000 Over $500,000 One Year $10,750 + 1% of amount in excess of $500,000 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. CONTRACT CA-4 r:~cip~pw9 9~ow9 9-15~Conb'act 2 12. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CITY. 13. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 15. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 16. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. 17. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. 18. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. CONTRACT CA-5 r:tcip~owg§~pw99-15\Contract 2 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex age, or handicap. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractodconsultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: William G. Hughes Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CONTRACT CA-6 r:~cip\pw99~pw99-15\Contract 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR Terra-Cai Construction, Inc. 14530 Joanbridge St. Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (626) 960-3694 By: Gregg Strumpf, President DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk CONTRACT CA-7 r:~cip\pw99~pw99-15\Contract 2 ITEM 16 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council /~Villiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2001 Professional Services Agreement, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Diaz Road Extension and Alignment Study, Project No. PW00-10 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Ward B. Maxwell, Associate Engineer - Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the agreement with, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide professional engineering services for the Alignment Study for the extension of Diaz Road to the City Limits and a Bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, Project No. PW00-10, for the not to exceed amount of $167,101.00, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments not to exceed the contingency amount of 10% of the contract or $16,710.10. BACKGROUND: The project consists of preparing Photogrametry and Base Mapping, Field Survey, Utilities and Right of Way Study, Geotechnical Analysis, Traffic Impacts, Bridge Planning Study, Drainage Study, Cost Estimates and an Alignment Study with three alternatives. In December, 2000, city staff evaluated three proposals received for providing professional engineering services as outlined in Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 086. The firms were ranked, and negotiations for the contract commenced with the number one ranked firm, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) of San Diego, California. KHA has extensive experience in providing civil engineering services for municipal governments. Subconsultants utilized by KHA for this project include Geocon for geotechnical investigations, Simon Wong Engineering for bridge planning study, and KEA Environmental for environmental services. FISCAL IMPACT: The Diaz Road Extension Alignment Study is funded through STP and Measure A Funds. Adequate funds are available in account 5802-210-165-684 for the subject professional services agreement in the amount of $167,101.00, including the contingency amount of $16,710.10, for a total amount of $183,811.10. ATTACH M ENTS: Project Location Project Description Agreement with Project Design Consultants. 1 R:~AGDRP~2001\0213\PW00-10 KHA AGREEMENT.DOC CITY OFTEMECULA AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES DIAZ ROAD EXTENSION TO CHERRY STREET PROJECT NO. PW00-10 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of February 13, 2001, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("city") and, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ("Consultant"). in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on February 13, 2001, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2002, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. Consultant shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 1 r:\cip\projects~pwOO-10\Kimley Horn Agn'nt/ajp 5. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred One Dollars and No Cents ($167,101.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum (basic agreement amount and contingency amount) exceed twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth 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 as to all nondisputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. 7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT. a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the 2 r:\cip~projects\pwO0-10~Kimley Horn AgrmtJajp Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (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 Consultant 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. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi- fled and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents 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 Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance 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 Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 3 r:\cip\projects\pwO0-10\Kimley Horn Agrmt/ajp (2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto), if the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. if the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. (4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. (4) Professional Liability coverage: Two million ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procura a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following previsions: The City, 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 Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4 r:~cip~projects~pw00-10~Kimley Horn AgrmtJajp (2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. (4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (5) 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) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VlI, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, 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 Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. 5 r:\cip\projects~w00-10~Kirnley Horn AgrmtJajp The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: City of Temecula Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager To Consultant: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 517 Fourth Avenue, Suite 301 San Diego, California 92101 Attention: Charles R. Spinks, Associate 16. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 6 r:\cip~projects\pw00-10~Kimley Horn Agrmt/ajp 17. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 18. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 19. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 21. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 7 r:\cip\projects\pwO0-10~Kimley Horn Agrmt/ajp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 517 Fourth Ave., Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234-9411 Jim R. Roberts, Senior Vice President Charles R. Spinks, Associate (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) 8 r:\cip\projects\pwO0-10~Kimley Horn Agrmt/ajp Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Diaz Road Extension and Alignment Study January 25, 2001 (Rev No. 4) Project Approach and Work Plan The proposed project consists of an alignment study for Diaz Road between Dendy Way and the City limits as well as a bridge study for crossing over Murrieta Creek north of Winchester Road. The length of the Diaz Road extension is approximately one mile. The purpose of the Diaz Road extension alignment study is to identify a specific horizontal and vertical alignment that will connect the existing Diaz Road in Temecula with Washington Avenue in Murrieta, or with a bridge crossing near Cherry Street, or with both. The alignment study will also establish right-of-way for future development. The bridge would provide an alternative east~west crossing of the creek. Diaz Road is classified as a four lane major street with a 100 foot right-of-way. The bridge width is estimated to be 72 feet. Thc key issues/challenges that will be faced on this project include: Finding a bridge alignment that will minimize 'impacts to thc future U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) project. For the area between Winchester and thc city limits (Cherry Street), the COE is proposing a detention basin that will serve as an ecological restoration area and public park. The width of the restoration area and park is from Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue. · Coordinating with Caltrans on the current 1-15 PSR that will establish a new freeway interchange north of Winchestor Road. The bridge crossing should ultimately tie into the new interchange. · Selecting the bridge type. We need to design a bridge that is aesthetically pleasing, minimizes environmental impacts and can be constructed within budget. The following describes the purpose, methodology, and deliverables for each major task. 1. Surveying and Mapping A two part mapping effort is proposed for this project. The first part will be to obtain 1"=100' topographic mapping with one-foot contours for a larger study area that will cover an area from Jefferson Avenue on the west to 100 feet east of Diaz Road and from Winchester Road on the south to 500 feet north of the City limits on the north. Field surveys will be performed to establish control for the mapping. Existing right-of-way where required will be added to the mapping. The right-of- way will include easements from City-provided title reports, and any irrevocable offers of dedication, COE land, and privately held land. This mapping will be utilized for thc alternative identification and analysis portion of the project. Page 1 of 6 01/30/01 Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. After the preferred alternative is selected, an 1"--40' topographic map with one-foot contours could be developed as additional services. Field survey could also be preformed as additional services to tie in visible utilities, existing Diaz Road and to establish temporary bench marks. For this proposal we are assuming that the length of the preferred alternative will be no greater than 7500 feet. 2. Reconnaissance Thc project team will conduct a preliminary reconnaissance of the study area to identify local environmental conditions. This preliminary reconnaissance will address all environmental and engineering issues relevant to the proposed project. 2.1 Environmental Analysis KEA Environmental, Inc. will be responsible for thc environmental analysis of this project. KEA recently prepared the Draft EIS/E1R for the Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD). The Draft EIS/EIR was released for public review on Friday, July 14, and the public comment period extended through August 21, 2000. KEA submitted the Final EIS/EIR to the COE in September 2000. Much of this information will be used for this study. Initial Assessment of Required Permits KEA Environmental (KEA) will investigate all required permits for the Diaz Road Extension Project. It is anticipated that the project would require a Clean Water Act Section 404 P~imit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Regulatory Branch, a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waiver, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). KEA will document the project's permit requirements in a memorandum to the City of Temecula. This memorandum will include a description of the survey requirements, timing constraints, and other pertinent information for each required permit. This scope of work does not include an impact analysis for final design of the road alternatives. Also, this scope of work does not include preparation of the peimit application packages and negotiations with the resource agencies that may be needed to finalize and acquire the permits. Biological Resources KEA will identify critical habitat that could be potentially affected by the extension of Diaz Road and construction of a new bridge across Murrieta Creek. It is unlikely that "critical habitat" as defined in the Endangered Species Act would be affected; however, sensitive habitat such as wetland/riparian vegetation would probably be affected by the project. Existing technical studies, including the Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project EIS/EIR, will be reviewed to assess known biological data for the project vicinity, and the likelihood for occurrence of sensitive species. KEA biologists will then conduct a field assessment of the area of potential affect (APE). The survey will focus on an assessment of the suitability of the area to support sensitive biological resources. Any sensitive species detected will be noted and mapped. The type, quality, extent, and connectivity of native habitat in the survey area adjacent to native habitat will also be noted. Vegetation communities and sensitive species observations will be recorded on an APE base map (electronic files or topography and orthophotography) provided by the City. KEA will provide the City with a memorandum documenting and describing any sensitive habitat within the APE. A biological constraints map will be prepared as part of the overall alignment study. Neither focused surveys or wetland delineations will be conducted under this scope of work. Page 2 of 6 01/30/01 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Environmental Mitigation Cost Estimates KEA will prepare a matrix identifying the anticipated environmental mitigation costs associated with the three alignments. This matrix will list the mitigation features that would be anticipated for each alignment including the cost per item end the basis for each estimate. A summary comparison of the mitigation features and costs associated with each alignment will also be provided. Because the scope of work does not include final impact analyses, KEA will determine the mitigation needs based on a rough estimate of the impacts calculated from the biology constraints map and alternative road alignments. The project site will be evaluated to determine generally whether, and to what degree, mitigation cen be accomplished onsite; however, an assessment of offsite mitigation options is not included in this scope of work. Therefore, the matrix and summary comparison of the mitigation associated with the alternative alignments will be based on the estimated extent of impacts, typical mitigation ratios, and average habitat-based mitigation costs per KEA's in-house experience. 2. 2 Geotechnical The geologic reconnaissance report will include research and field studies to prepare a summary of the geologic condition and provide a general evaluation of the geologic hazards. Specifically, we propose to perform thc following: Review published geologic maps, aerial photographs, and other literature pertaining to the study area available in-house and/or at the City of Temecula to aid in evaluating geologic hazards and characterizing the geologic subsurface conditions. Conduct a geologic site reconnaissance to visually map the exposed surficial site conditions and verify data derived from the research efforts. Prepare a written report to be utilized by the project civil engineer and structural engineer in evaluating the impact of the geologic setting on the roadway end bridge alignment alternatives. The report will discuss and identify geologic groundwater, scoui' potential end remedial grading, as well as provide preliminary design parameters for roadway pavement sections end bridge foundation. Provide supplemental geotechnical engineering consultation on an as-requested basis as required by other design team consultants or the City of Temecula. 2.3 Data Collection We will obtain and review technical and other background information pertinent to the project. Site visits will verify existing improvements end utilities. The data that will be collected includes, but is not limited to, COE Murrieta Creek technical studies, base mapping, drainage studies, utility as- builts, streets as-builts, and existing right-of-way records. 2.4 Traffic Impacts Traffic will be assessed for each alternative including length of travel, travel speeds, potential impacts to business including pedestrian and vehicle access, and sight distance analysis demonstrating adequate sight distance along each alignment and at new intersections. 2.5 Design Criteria This task will evaluate existing technical and other background information and establish design criteria to guide the project delivery, identifying opportunities and constraints in developing the preferred alternative. Page 3 of 6 01/30/01 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Design criteria will be established to guide the design of Diaz Road and associated bridge. The criteria will include geometric design, design speeds, drainage, grading, safety and operational, utilities, and conformance with City of Temecula/Ivlurrieta and other regional standards. Typical sections will be completed to identify roadway and parkway widths, building set-backs, and side slope grading. 3. Planning Study 3. I Alternative Identification The KHA team will use the information obtained in the previous task to develop and analYze three preliminary design alternatives and the no build alternative. Three Alignment Alternatives · Extend Diaz Road to Cherry Street (city limits) and provide a bridge crossing along Cherry Street south of the city limits. · Extend Diaz Road and provide a bridge crossing for Dendy Parkway/Diaz Road Intersection which crosses the proposed Ecological Restoration Area. · Extend Diaz Road and provide a curved bridge crossing from the Dendy Parkway/Diaz Road intersection to Cherry Street to minimize impact to the proposed Ecological Restoration Area. The alternatives will be laid out in AutoCAD 2000 using topographic mapping, the established design criteria, typical sections, and opportunity and constraints mapping. The design will include horizontal location, right-of-way limits and typical sections. Each alternative will be drawn on the topographic mapping at a scale of 1"--100'. The proposed alignment study for Diaz Road will include a bridge crossing of Murrieta Creek. It is anticipated that the bridge will be approximately 72' wide and length would vary for different crossing locations and alignments. Structure types will be studied that consider the roadway requirements, site geology and bridge impacts on the environment and hydraulics of the channel. For this phase of the project, planning studies for one alignment will be provided. The planning studies will include preliminary plan showing bridge plan, elevation and typical section, and preliminary cost estimate for construction. 3.2 Drainage/Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis The study area is adjacent to thc reach of Murrieta Creek which includes the proposed detention basin. Diaz Road and the adjacent developed areas will drain into Murrieta Creek. This should not be a problem during most of the year when the flows are low, but when flood flows fill the detention basin, the water surface elevations in the detention basin which is surrounded by levees, could be higher than the adjacent developed areas. This may require local drainage to either be pumped into the Creek or carried in storm drains downstream to a location where the flows can flow by gravity into the Creek. Page 4 of 6 01/30/01 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The industrial area to the West of Murrieta Creek will not drain into the CEO project channel during periods of high flow, so a preliminary analysis will be prepared to present drainage alternatives along Diaz Road. Kimley-Horn and Associates will prepare a hydrologic study of the adjacent tributary areas that will address the alternatives for drainage during storm flows. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses will be prepared for a local drainage system that will function during flood flows. KHA will review the Corps of Engineers hydraulics in Murrieta Creek and will also review the Corps routing of flows through the detention basin. Flood flows that are greater than the design capacity of the proposed improvements will flow over an emergency spillway on the fight bank of the Creek adjacent to Diaz Road and will flood the adjacent areas. It is probably not feasible to design a local drainage system to handle these flows. Additional hydraulic analysis will be prepared that will address the potential hydraulic impact of encroaching abutments, realigned levees, bridge piers, and scour. Every effort will be made to provide facilities and structures that do not impact the water surface elevations upstream fi.om the crossing. Close coordination with the Army Corps, Riverside County Flood Control District and the City of Murrieta will be required. 3.3 Alternative Analysis Thc altemativc analysis will focus on the following: 1. Environmental Impacts 2. Conformance to design criteria 4. Costs 5. Right-of-way Thc biological analysis would include discussions on wetlands, sensitive species issues, and on-site mitigation under the proposed design alternatives. The alternative analysis report will also discuss sensitive vegetation/habitat types, and CEQA sensitive species, which are present or highly likely to be present on site. The analysis will identify conformance of the cun~nt site condition with those identified as part of the COE Murrieta Creek improvements, with alternatives for avoiding significant impacts to biological resources. In working within the right-of-way and environmental constraints, it is quite possible that the design of the roadway might not conform to all design criteria. In previous projects, we have avoided biological as well as cultural resources and significant fight-of-way impacts by using non-standard design elements such as steeper vertical grades, smaller radius horizontal curvature with super- elevation, steeper side slopes and narrow parkways. This criteria will evaluate the safety and operational aspects of non-standard design features. Costs will be developed for each alternative and will include: · Construction · Utility Relocation · Bridge Costs Page 5 of 6 01/30/01 Kimley-Horn. and Associates, inc, · Right-of-way (including land, improvements, relocation, condemnation, severance and good will). No appraisals are assumed. The costs will be derived using recent and relevant sale information. · Environmental Mitigation · Add-on (i.e., design, administration and contingencies) The preferred alternative will be submitted in AutoCAD 2000 format as well as on mylars. The alignment design will include a cover sheet, typical sections, and 1"=100' scale plan and profile sheets. In coordination with Kimlcy-Hom and Associates, Simon Wong Engineering will determine the preliminary bridge length, width and location for the preferred alternative. A bridge planning study report will be prepared identifying potential structure types with recommendations for the structural materials, span layout and length, foundation type, railing type and architectural and aesthetic treatments. Included with the report will be a preliminary general plan of the bridge showing the information listed above and a preliminary opinion of probably construction coat. For the preferred alternative, Kimley-Hom and Associates will prepare right-of-way documents that will include: Research public records for recorded maps, assessors maps, etc Compile a base map of the proposed corridor from record data. This base map will be used to determine new right-of-way requirements and be the basis of individual dedication plats. Create dedication plats, legal descriptions and grant deeds for up to 25 new right-of-way parcels. We are assuming that the City will provide all title reports. Deliverables (5 copies of each) · Opportunity and Constraints Mapping · Design Criteria Technical Memorandum · Geotechnical Description · Base Mapping · Blueline prints of the preferred alternative. · Digital files of preferred alignment as AutoCAD 2000 drawings. · Right-of-way plats. Scope Exclusions: Geotechnical investigations including borings. Right-of-way negotiations Traffic counts Environmental documentation/technical studies/permits Final design/construction. Construction administration. City Council meetings/presentations All outside agency coordination will be done by City staff. ?:Uvl A IIXEI'.INO~Diu_Road~ Of Work r~v 4.do~ Page 6 of 6 01/30/01 EXHIBIT B KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. HOURLY RATESCHEDULE E~iveFebma~l,2001-~mm~r31,2001 OFFICE PRINCIPAL ..................................................................................................................................... $175.00 PROJECT MANAG ER .................................................................................................................... $155.00 SENIOR PROFESSIONAL .............................................................................................................. $130.00 PROJECT ENGINEER .................................................................................................................... $100.00 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER ................................................................................................................ $ 90.00 CADD OPERATOR ......................................................................................................................... $ 85.00 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER ....................................................................................................... $ 85.00 SUPPORT STAFF ........................................................................................................................... $ 70.00 FIELD TWO-PERSON SURVEY PARTY ................................................................................................... $185.00 ¥~,ADRE\VOL l~O.D RIV E',.MAR KET.IN G\DIAZ_ROAD'~,ATE SCHEDULE.DOC Rev 02/01/01 ITEM 17 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL ., CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOROFFINAN ClTYMANAGER~ II City Manager/City Council ¢'~,~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2001 First Amendment to the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Temecula and Eastern Municipal Water District First Street Extension, Project No. PW95-08 PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Ward B. Maxwell, Associate Engineer- Capital Projects RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the First Amendment to the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Temecula and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) for an amount equal to $405,686.21 and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1. Approve an appropriation of $100,000.00 to cover the reimbursable costs from EMWD for their facilities associated with the bridge construction project. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders with Riverside Construction Company for the additional amount of $100,000.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency for First Street Extension, Project No. PW95-08. BACKGROUND: On February 8, 2000 the City entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with EMWD for their facilities associated with the First Street Bridge Construction P. roject. During the preconstruction meeting EMWD notified the City that major revisions to the Sewer Force Main and Pujol Lift Station plans were required. EMWD's revisions resulted in contract change orders that exhausted $374,271.67 of the project's $452,222.20 contingency. City initiated contract change orders only total $72,319.90, well within our 10% contingency. The total of all project change orders results in a contingency balance of $5,630.62. To provide an adequate contingency balance for the City's project, staff is requesting that $100,000.00 from the EMWD Reimbursement Revenue be placed in the project contingency to replace funds expended by the EMWD contract change orders. This will cover any additional contract change orders or contract items for the remainder of the project. FISCAL IMPACT: The Old Town First Street Bridge, First Street Realignment and Roadway Improvements Project is funded by Redevelopment Agency, Capital Project Reserves and Reimbursement Revenue from EMWD and Rancho California Water District. EMWD will reimburse the City $405,686.21 for the additional work to complete their facilities. The appropriation of $100,000.00 to the project budget is necessary to cover this reimbursable amount to ensure that adequate funds are available in Project Account No. 280-199-807-5804. ATTACHMENT: Amendment No.1 1 R:~AGDRPT~2001\0213~PW95-08EMWDAmend I ,DOC FIRST AMENDMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FIRST STREET EXTENSION PROJECT NO.PW95-08 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of January 8, 2001 by and between the City ofTemecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Eastern Municipal Water District, a public agency organized and existing pursuant to Division 20 of the California Water Code, hereinafter r6ferred to as ("EMWD"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes: On March 21, 2000 the City and EMWD entered into that certain agreement entitled "Reimbursement Agreement Between City of Temecula, First Street Extension, Project No. PW95-08 and Eastern Municipal Water District" ("Agreement"). b. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. The original reimbursement agreement between EMWD and the City was for Six Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Seven Dollars and 5 Cents ($638,907.05). Compensation shall be for all services described in this Amendment and shall not exceed Four Hundred Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Six Dollars and 21 Cents ($405,686.21) for a revised total agreement amount of One Million Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three Dollars and 26 Cents ($1,044,593.26). o Exhibit "A" is added to the Agreement, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. District: EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ~x..~mdin, General Manager ~'M~/~C. White, Board Secretary City: CITY OF TEMECULA By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" EMWD CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Original Agreement Amount Contract Change Order 1R Contract Change Order 2 Contract Change Order 3 Preliminary Change Order 1 Preliminary Change Order 2 Contract Change Order 4 Total Contract Change Order Amount Contingency (Potential Outstanding Change Orders) Total Revised Agreement Amount $ 638,907.05 $ 4,125.00 $ 522.00 $ 49,258.75 $ 142,961.00 $ 147,565.00 $ 11,254.46 $ 355,686.21 $ 50,000.00 $1,044,593.26 See attached Contract Change Orders issued by Eastern Municipal Water District ITEM 18 ORDINANCE NO. 01- 01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ZONING STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. '12, THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (PA98-0481) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section t. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: a. S-P Murdy LLC (IOwner') filed Plann!ng Application No. PA98-0481 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code for Specific Plan No. 12 and other land use approvals for a 557 acre planned community along the east side of Pata Road, south of State Highway 79 South between Loma Linda Road and Deer Hollow (formerly Fairview Avenue) in the City of Temecula ("Project"). The area subject to the application consists of Assessor's Parcel Nos. 950-110-002, 950-110-005, 950-110-033, 950- 180-001,950-180-005, 950-180-006, and 950-180-010. b. On September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000, October 4, 2000, October 18, 2000 and December 6, 2000 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public headngs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Specific Plan No. 12 and the other land use applications for the Project at which time all persons interested in the Draft EIR, proposed Specific Plan No. 12 and the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. c. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public headngs and due consideration of the proposed Development Agreement and the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2000-037A recommending to the City Council that Specific Plan No. 12 be approved, subject to certain recommended conditions. d. On January 9, 2001, and January 23, 2001 the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public headngs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, proposed Specific Plan No. 12, and the other land use applications for the Project at which time all persons interested in the proposed Specific Plan No. 12 and the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. e. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public headngs before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Draft EIR, Specific Plan No. 12 and the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-11, entitled ~A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 (Planning Application No. 98-0482) and Related Actions, and Adoption of the Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Connection Therewith." R:Ords2001-01 I Section 2. and declares that: The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines a. Specific Plan No. 12 implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and provides balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. b. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of Specific Plan No. 12 as well as the vadous potential benefits to the City by the development of Specific Plan No. 12 and concluded that Specific Plan No. 12 is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. c. Specific Plan No. 12 is consistent with the City's General Plan, and each Element thereof, the City's Growth Management Program Action Plan and constitutes a present valid exercise of the City's police power. d. Specific Plan No. 12 is compatible with surrounding land uses. It proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. Commercial development is proposed within a Village Center, across Pala from the Pechanga Casino. e. Specific Plan No. 12 will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. f. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the zoning standards for Specific Plan No. 12 0Nolf Creek Specific Plan), PA98-0481, which approval consists of the zoning section of Specific Plan 12 attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Residential Development Standards Matrix attached hereto as Exhibit B. Section 4. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. R:Ords2001-01 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13~ of February, 2001. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 01-01 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of January, 2001, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 13t~ day of February, 2001 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Ci{y Clerk R:Ords2001-01 3 EXHIBIT A SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS EXHIBITS, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S FIRST READING ARE BEING PREPARED PURSUANT TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 21 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12. R:Ords20Ol-01 4 EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MATRIX TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBITS, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S FIRST READING ARE BEING PREPARED PURSUANT TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 21 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12. R:Ords2001-01 5 ITEM 19 FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. 0t- 02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND S-P MURDY LLC' (PA 00-0029) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: a. S-P Murdy LLC ("Owner") filed Planning Application No. PA00-O029 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code for land use approvals for a 557 acre planned community along the east side of Pala Road, south of State Highway 79 South between Loma Linda Road and Deer Hollow (formerly Fairview Avenue) in the City of Temecuta ('Project'). b. Government Code Section 65864 authorizes the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer;, provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage pdvate participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; and provide for economic assistance to Owner for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. c. On September 6, 2000, September 20, 2000, October 4, 2000, October 18, 2000 and December 6, 2000 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public headngs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Development Agreement and the other land use applications for the Project at which time all persons interested in the Draft EIR, proposed Development Agreement and the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. d. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public heatings and due consideration of the proposed Development Agreement and the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2000-037A recommending to the City Council that the Development Agreement be approved, subject to certain recommended conditions. e. On January 9, 2001, and January 23, 2001 the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public headngs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Draft EIR, proposed Development Agreement and the other land use applications for the Project at which time all persons interested in the proposed Development Agreement and the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. R:Ords 2001- 1 f. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Draft EIR, Development Agreement and the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001- m, entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 (Planning Application No. 98-0482) and Related Actions, and Adoption of the Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Connection Therewith." Section 2. and declares that: The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines a. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided by Owner and the Project, in further consideration of the implementation of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and in order to strengthen the public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by the Development Agreement, the City intends to give Owner assurance that Owner can proceed with the development of the Project for the Term of the Development Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and in accordance with the City's General Plan, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations existing as set forth in the Development Agreement. In reliance on the City's covenants in the Development Agreement concerning the development of the Property, Owner has and will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to make the Project feasible. b. The Development Agreement and the Existing Project Approvals, as defined in the Development Agreement, implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, and the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. c. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. d. The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, and each Element thereof, and the City's Growth Management Action Plan, and constitutes a present valid exercise of the City's police power. e. The Development Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65867. f. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves certain agreement entitled "Development Agreement by and Between the City of Temecula and S-p Murdy LLC" and authorizes the Mayor to execute said agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. R:Ords 2001- 2 Section 4. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section $. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13~ day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 01-02 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23~ day of January, 2001 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 13t" day of February, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:Ords 2001- 3 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:Ords 2001- 4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By and Between THE CITY OF TEMECULA, City, and S-P MURDY, LLC, Owner. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of the __ day of ,2001 ("Agreement Date"), by and between S-P MURDY, LLC, a California limited liability company (hereinafter "OWNER"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Legislation") and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. B. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive ptans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; and provide for economic assistance to OWNER for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. C. OWNER is the owner of certain real property within the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, State of California (the "Property"), as more particularly described in Attachment "1" attached hereto and made a part hereof. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the applicable regulations of the City of Temecula and those regulations of other agencies exercising jurisdiction upon the project. The Scope of Development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement is described in the Agreement in Section 1.4. D. OWNER has applied for, and the CITY has granted, this Agreement in order to create a beneficial project and a physical environment that will conform to and complement the goals of the CITY, create a development project sensitive to human needs and values, facilitate efficient traffic circulation, and develop the Property. As part of the process of granting this entitlement, the City Council of the CITY (hereinafter 641384 02/06/2001 -1- the "City Council") has required the preparation of an environmental review and has certified the Specific Plan EIR as regards any significant effects arising from the Development and has otherwise carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended. Project: The following actions were taken with respect to this Agreement and the 1. On December 6, 2000, following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement; 2. On , after a duly noticed public hearing and pursuant to CEQA, the City Council adopted the Specific Plan EIR for this Agreement and the Project; 3. On ., after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council determined that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the General Plan of the CITY; 4. On ., after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. __ approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement and on ., the City Council adopted the Ordinance, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department at the CITY, and adopted the findings and conditions pertaining thereto, including those relating to the environmental documentation for the Project. F. The CITY has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project as well as the various potential benefits to the CITY by the development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of the CITY. G. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided by OWNER and the Project, in further consideration of the implementation of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and in order to strengthen the public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by this Agreement, the CITY intends to give OWNER assurance that OWNER can proceed with the development of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and in accordance with the CITY's General Plan, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations existing as of the Effective Date. In reliance on the CITY's covenants in this Agreement concerning the Development of the Property, OWNER has and will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to make the Project feasible. 641384 02/06/2001 - 2- H. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement and the Existing Project Approvals implement the goals and policies of the CITY's General Plan, and the Wolf Creek Specific Plan provide balanced and diversified land uses and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the CITY, (ii) this Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the CITY and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with the CITY's General Plan and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation. I. The CITY and OWNER agree that it may be beneficial to enter into additional agreements or to modify this Agreement with respect to the implementation of the separate components of the Project when more information concerning the details of each component is available, and that this Agreement should expressly allow for such contemplated additional agreements or modifications to this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, as it applies to the CITY, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, all of which are expressly incorporated into this Agreement, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. The following words and phrases are used as defined terms throughout this Development Agreement and each defined term shall have the meaning set forth below. 1.1. Authorizing Ordinance. The "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. __ approving this Agreement. 1.2. CITY. The "CITY" means the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and ail of its officials, employees, agencies and departments. 1.3. City Council. "City Council" means the duly elected and constituted city council of the CITY. 1.4. Development. "Development" means the improvement of the Property for purposes consistent with the Project's land use authorization as set forth in the Development Plan, including, without limitation: grading, the construction of 641384 02/06/2001 -3- infrastructure and public facilities related to the Off-site Improvements and On-site Improvements, the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping. 1.5. Development Aqreement Legislation. The "Development Agreement Legislation" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Effective Date. 1.6. Development Fees. "Development Fees" means Development Impact Fees and defined hereunder and processing fees imposed on the Development as conditions of development as more particularly set forth in Section 4.2. 1.7 Development Impact Fees. Except as set forth herein and for purposes of this Agreement, Development Impact Fees (sometimes D.I.F.) shall mean individually and in the aggregate, the City's currently adopted D.I.F. fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 97-09 in effect as of the Effective Date together with a ten (10%) percent increase to the Parks and Recreation Component of the D.I.F. 1.8 Development Plan. The "Development Plan" consists of this Agreement, the City of Temecula General Plan, the Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map No. 29305, the Specific Plan EIR (including mitigation monitoring program) prepared for the General Plan and Specific Plan the Existing Regulations, and those Future Development Approvals, if any, contemplated, necessary, and requested by OWNER to implement the land uses authorized by the Project. 1.9 Effective Date. "Effective Date" means the date the Authorizing Ordinance becomes effective. 1.10 End User. "End User" means a buyer, assignee, or transferee of one or more individual subdivided single occupancy unit/tot(s) of the Project, acquiring such lot or lots with the intention of occupying and using such lots or I units for its own permanent purposes and not for resale, development or further subdivision. 1.11 Existing Regulations. "Existing Regulations" means those ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, requirements, guidelines, constraints or other actions of the CITY, other than site-specific Project Approvals, which purport to affect, govern or apply to the Property or the implementation of the Development Plan(s) in effect on the Effective Date. Existing Regulations shall also include the text of the zoning district designations of any zoning district applicable to the site of the Project in effect on the Effective Date. 1.12 Future Development Approvals. "Future Development Approvals" means those entitlements and approvals contemplated, necessary, and requested by the CITY or OWNER to cause the Development to occur upon the Property subsequent to completion of the Project and approved by the City currently upon or after the Effective Date. The parties hereto expressly anticipate Owner will institute mixed uses 641384 02/06/2001 -4 - on the property that may include some combination of residential, institutional, commercial, recreational, and other uses. 1.13 Non-end User. "Non-end User" means a buyer, assignee, or transferee of one or more individual lots or tracts of the Project, acquiring such lots or tracts with the intention of developing, improving, or using such lots or tracts for development and/or resale. 1.14 Off-site Improvements. "Off-site Improvements" means the improvements set forth on Attachment 2 as more specifically described in the Development Plan. 1,15 On-site Improvements. "On-site Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities that are or will be located on the Property as described in the Development Plan. Certain On-site Improvements may be specifically addressed in this Agreement, which are identified on Attachment 3. All others will be dependent upon the Development and the required Future Development Approvals. 1.16 OWNER. "OWNER" is initially S-P MURDY, LLC, a California limited liability company, and all successors in interest, in whole or part, to this entity. 1.17 Planning Commission. "Planning Commission," means the duly appointed and constituted planning commission of the CITY. 1.18 Project. "Project" means the adoption of this Agreement thus securing and refining the scope and intensity of the Development Plan, including the land uses to be developed upon the parcel which is approximately Five Hundred Fifty-Seven (557) acres in area and which is generally located adjacent to Pala Road between Loma Linda Road and Deer Hollow Road. The uses permitted and scope of the Development shall be consistent with the development standards set forth in the Development Plan (excepting Future Development Approvals) and any applicable zoning district in effect on the Effective Date (copies of which are attached hereto as Attachments "4" and "5" and are incorporated herein by this reference) subject to the express limitations in this Agreement. 1.19 Project Approval. "Project Approval" means the accomplishment of the actions as described in Section 1.18. 1.20 Specific Plan. "Specific Plan" means the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, approved by the CITY on January 23, 2001 and as thereafter amended from time to time. Any reference in this Agreement to a Planning Area shall mean the Planning Areas set forth in the Specific Plan. 1.21 Specific Plan E.I.R. "Specific Plan E.I.R." means that environmental impact report prepared for the Specific Plan and as certified on January 23, 2001. 641384 02/06/2001 - 5- 1.22 Street and Right-of-Way Improvements. "Street and Right-of-Way Improvements" shall mean, and include, but not limited to, all required pavement, base, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, irrigation, landscaping, fire hydrants, utilities, and all other routinely required improvements within public rights-of-way. 2. General Provisions. 2.1. Binding Covenants. The provisions of this Agreement to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and all successors in interest to the parties hereto. 2.2. Interest of OWNER. OWNER represents that OWNER has a legal interest in the Property that satisfies California Government Code Section 65865(b). 2.3. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date, and shall have a term (the "Term") of ten (10) consecutive calendar years. The Term shall commence on the earlier of either the date the CITY issues the first (1st) building permit for a residential dwelling unit within the Project or the second (2d) anniversary of the Effective Date, and shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. of the day preceding the tenth (10n) anniversary of the commencement of the Term, subject to specific extensions, revisions, and termination provisions of this Agreement. 2.4. Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 2.4.1 If termination occurs pursuant to any specific provision of this Agreement; 2.4.2 Completion of the total build-out of the Development pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the CITY's issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance of all dedications and improvements required to complete Development; or 2.4.3 Entry after all appeals have been exhausted of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the CITY as a result of any lawsuit filed against the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Agreement for any part of the Project. 2.4.4 The lapse of the Term as set forth in Section 2.3. The termination of this Agreement shall not affect any right or duty arising independently from entitlements issued by the CITY or other land use approvals approved prior to, concurrently or subsequent-to the approval of this Agreement, except as may be provided in this Agreement. 641384 02/06/2001 -6- 2.5. Transfers and Assignments. 2.5.1. Right to Transfer or Assiqn to End User. OWNER shall, without the consent of the CITY, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses, to sell, assign or otherwise transfer any or all individual lots on final maps approved on the Property or any portion thereof, to any End User at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Upon the sale, assignment, or other transfer to an End User of one or more individual lots, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to such lots; provided, however, that nothing in this Section 2.5.1 shall release OWNER from completing any On-site Improvements related to such lots or any Off-site Improvements required by this Agreement or the Development Plan. 2.5.2. Right to Assign to Non-End User. OWNER shall, without the consent of the CITY, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses to sell, assign or otherwise transfer all or any portion of its interests in the Property together with all its right, title and interest in this Agreement, or the portion thereof which is subject to transfer (the "Transferred Property"), to any Non-end User at any time during the Term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such transfer or assignment must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of the interest of OWNER in the Property, or a portion thereof and shall be subject to the following mandatory criteria and conditions. In the event of any sale, assignment, or other transfer pursuant to this Section 2.5.2, (i) OWNER shall notify the CITY within twenty (20) days prior to the transfer of the name of the Non-End User, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such Non-End User and (ii) the agreement between OWNER and Non-End User pertaining to such transfer shall provide that the Non-End User shall be liable for the performance of those obligations of OWNER under this Agreement which relate to the Transferred Property, if any. Each Non-End User and OWNER shall notify the CITY in writing which of the two entities shall be liable for the performance of each obligation. Upon any sale, assignment, or other transfer under this Section 2.5.2, the CITY shall in writing release OWNER from all obligations, if any, of OWNER under this Agreement which relate to the Transferred Property, and in addition shall acknowledge and agree in writing that the CITY's sole recourse for any refusal or failure to perform such obligations shall be solely against the Non- End User. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the CITY reasonably determines that OWNER's Development of the Project or a portion thereof is dependent upon the performance of obligations assumed by a Non-End User, which obligations have not been performed, the CITY may, in its reasonable discretion, withhold any approvals, including, without limitation, certificates of occupancy, from OWNER and/or the Non- End User until such obligations have been substantially performed. 2.5.3. Rights and Duties of Successors and Assigns. Any, each and all successors and assigns of OWNER shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement. 2.6. Amendment of Development Agreement. 641384 02/06/2001 -7- 2.6.1. Initiation of Amendment. Any party may propose an amendment to this Agreement and both parties agree that it may be beneficial to enter into additional agreements or modifications of this Agreement in connection with the implementation of the separate components of the Project. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, 'no amendment to the Specific Plan or to any conditions of approval contained therein shall require an amendment of this Agreement unless such amendment causes an inconsistency with the Development Plan and this Agreement. Unless and until this Agreement is amended to remove such inconsistency, the provisions of the Specific Plan and/or conditions of approval shall be superior and shall control, and this Agreement shall be without force or effect only as to such inconsistencies. 2.6.2. Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 2.6.4 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance. 2.6.3. Consent. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, any amendment to this Agreement shall require the written consent of both parties. No amendment to all or any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each of the parties. 2.6.4. Operatinq Memoranda. The parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development Plan and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the parties mutually find that changes, adjustments, or clarifications are appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Agreement, and such are not inconsistent with the Development Plan, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes, adjustments, or clarifications without amendment to this Agreement through one or more operating memoranda mutually approved by the parties, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof and may be further changed and amended from time to time as necessary, with further approval by the City Manager, or designee, on behalf of the CITY and by any corporate officer or other person designated for such purpose in a writing signed by a corporate officer on behalf of OWNER. Unless otherwise required by law or by the Project Approvals, no such changes, adjustments, or clarifications shall require prior notice or hearing, public or otherwise. 3. Description of Development. 641384 02/06/2001 - 8- 3.1. Development and Control of Development. 3.1.1. Project. While this Agreement is in effect, OWNER shall have the vested right to implement the Development authorized by the Project by and through the Development Plan pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approval, including, without limitation, specific uses, densities, and types of development provided for in the Specific Plan, and the CITY shall have the right to control the Development in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all regulations, permits and entitlements established in or under the Development Plan. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Existing Regulations shall control the design and development, Future Development Approvals and all On-site Improvements and Off- Site Improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith. 3.1.2. Timing of Development. A.) Except as set forth in the Development Plan and in Section 3.1.2B below, regardless of any future enactment, by initiative, or otherwise, OWNER shall have the discretion to develop the Development in one phase or in multiple phases at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment and as the same is in accordance with the Development Ptan. Specifically, the CITY agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to apply for and receive permits, maps, occupancy certificates and other entitlements to develop and use the Property at any time, provided that such application is made in accordance with this Agreement and the Existing Regulations. The parties hereto expressly reject the holding of Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), as regards any authority regulating the phasing of the Development and authorize the phasing of the construction on the Property to be consistent with the Development Plan. B.) Restriction on Development. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, either express or by inference, no building permit shall be issued within Planning Areas 7 through 24, inclusive, and no building permits in excess of four hundred (400) total building permits shall be issued unless and until the fire station referenced in Section 4.4.2 of this Agreement is operational or the temporary station referenced in Section 4.5.1 is operational as established by the Fire Chief. OWNER's conformance to Section 4.4.2 and/or Section 4.5.1 shall be deemed satisfaction of the conditions of approval in the Development Plan regulating the development of Fire Station improvements, and OWNER shall not have building permits withheld on the basis of no satisfaction of such condition of approval. 3.1.3. Entitlements, Permits and Approvals - Cooperation. 3.1.3.1. Further Mitiqation. In connection with the completion of the Project, OWNER shall be responsible for the satisfaction of any mitigation measures that depend on, act upon, or relate to Future Development Approvals. In connection with the issuance of any Future Development Approvals 641384 02/06/2001 -9- which are subject to review under CEQA, unless required under CEQA, the CITY shall not impose any environmental land use project alternatives or mitigation measures in addition to those referenced in the Project Approvals or deemed by the CITY reasonably necessary in light of the development activity proposal. 3.1.3.2. .Other Permits. The CITY further agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER, at no cost to the CITY, in securing any County, State and Federal permits or authorizations which may be required in connection with development contemplated by the Development Plan. This cooperation shall not entail any economic contribution by the CITY. 3.2. Rules, Requlations and Official Policies. Except as otherwise specified in the Development Plan, and the Project Approvals, the rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Proper[y, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to Development of the Property shall be the Existing Regulations. In connection with any subsequent approval or action which the CITY is permitted or has the right to make under this Agreement relating to the Project, the CITY shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with this Agreement, the Existing Regulations and such other standards, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. An overview and non-exhaustive list of Existing Regulations is listed in Attachment 6. The CITY has certified two copies of each of the documents listed on Attachment 6. The CITY has retained one set of the certified documents and has provided OWNER with the second set. 3.3. Reserved Authority. 3.3.1. Uniform Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent the CITY from applying new rules, regulations and policies relating to uniform codes adopted by the State of California, as State Codes, such as the Uniform Building Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code or Uniform Fire Code, as amended, and the application of the aforementioned uniform codes is hereby approved including as the same may be amended by the CITY from time to time in CITY's sole discretion. 3.3.2. State and Federal Laws and Requlations. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CITY shall not adopt or undertake any regulation, program or action, or fail to take any action which is inconsistent or in conflict with this 641384 02/06/2001 - 10- Agreement until the CITY makes a finding that such regulation, program action or inaction is required (as opposed to permitted) to comply with such State and Federal laws or regulations after taking into consideration all reasonable alternatives. 3.3.3. Regulation for Health and Safety. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the CITY shall have the right to apply the CITY regulations (including amendments to the Existing Regulations) adopted by the CITY after the Effective Date, in connection with any Future Development Approvals, or deny, or impose conditions of approval on, any Future Development Approvals in the CITY's sole discretion if such application is required to protect the physical health and safety of existing or future occupants of the Property, or any portion thereof or any lands adjacent thereto. 3,4. Vested Right. By entering into this Agreement and relying thereupon, OWNER is obtaining the vested rights to proceed with the Development anticipated by the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Project Approvals. By entering into this Agreement and relying thereupon, the CITY is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and welfare, a partial listing of which benefits is set forth in Section 4.1. The CITY therefore agrees to the following: 3.4.1. No Conflicting Enactments. Except as provided in Section 3.3 of this Agreement, neither the City Council nor any other agency of the CITY shall enact a rule, regulation, ordinance or other measure (collectively "law") applicable to the Property which is inconsistent or in conflict with this Development Plan. Any law, whether by specific reference to the Development Agreement or otherwise, shall be considered to conflict if it has any of the following effects: (i) Limits or reduces the density or intensity of the Development as regulated by the Existing Regulations or otherwise requires any reduction or increase in the number, size or square footage of lot(s), structures, buildings or other improvements; or (ii) Applies to the Property, but is not uniformly applied by the CITY to all substantially similar development within the CITY. 3.4.2. Consistent Enactments. By way of enumeration and not limitation, the following types of enactments shall be considered consistent with this Agreement and Existing Regulations and not in conflict: (i) Relocation of structures within the Property pursuant to an application from OWNER; 641384 02/06/2001 - 11 - (ii) Changes in the phasing of the development pursuant to an application from OWNER and as approved by the City Planning and Public Works Departments; and (iii) Any enactment authorized by this Agreement. 3.4.3. Initiative Measures. It is the intent of OWNER and the CITY that no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the development of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), site development permits, precise plans, site development plans, building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use approved, issued or granted within the CITY, or portions of the CITY, shall apply to the Project to the extent such moratorium or other limitation would restrict OWNER's right to develop the Development authorized by the Development Plan in such order and at such rate as OWNER deems appropriate as limited or regulated by this Agreement. The CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending. 3.4.4. Consistency Between This Agreement and Current Laws. The CITY represents that at the Effective Date there are no rules, regulations, ordinances, policies or other measures of the CITY in force that would interfere with the Development and use of all or any part of the Property according this Agreement and the Development Plan. 3.5. Future Amendments to Development Plan. The following rules apply to future amendments to the Development Plan: 3.5.1. Owne~"s Written Consent. Any Development Plan amendment to which OWNER does not agree in writing shall not apply to the Property or the Project while this Agreement is in effect. 3.5.2. Concurrent Development Aqreement Amendment. Any Development Plan amendment requiring amendment of this Agreement shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement. 3.5.3. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly set forth within this Agreement, a Development Plan amendment will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Agreement. 641384 02/06/2001 - 12- 4. Obligations of the Parties. 4.1. Benefits to CITY. The direct and indirect benefits the CITY (including, without limitation the existing and future residents of the CITY) will receive pursuant to the implementation of the Agreement generally include, but are not limited to, the following: 4.1.1. Growth Management. The Project conforms to the CITY's effort to manage growth through the use of, among other things, comprehensive planning and design, Project-wide continuity of landscaping and architectural design, design standards and layout concepts exceeding the CITY's standards for residential development, and the village-center concept. 4.1.2. Traffic and Circulation. The Traffic and Circulation elements of the Project conform to the proposed regional plan under consideration by the County of Riverside and to the CITY's General Plan, and are designed to reduce the impact of the average daily trips generated by the Project on arterial roads and thoroughfares by, among other things, encouraging the use of streets internal to the Project for school- related trips. 4.1.3. Schools. The prevision of sites for new schools and the construction of such schools on an "up front" basis rather than "as needed" and phased to coincide with the build out of the Project, which early provision and construction will assist local school districts in meeting current area needs as well as creating adequate capacity for future needs. 4.1.4. Parks and Recreation. The public parks and other recreational facilities to be dedicated and/or constructed as provided for herein exceed the CITY's requirements for open space and parks, and contribute to meeting the need for open space and parks in the area, including, without limitation, a 40-acre regional sports park (the "Regional Park"), parking for existing CITY facilities, a potential for joint-use facilities with adjacent schools, and lighted parks and recreational facilities. 4.1.5. No Habitat Impact. Development of the Project has no presently known adverse impact on area habitat in light of the prior long-term agricultural use of the Property. 4.2. Development Fees. Certain presently uncalculable or unadopted processing fees will be imposed on the Future Development Approvals as conditions of approval. OWNER shall be responsible for payment of such fees as they may become due at the charge then applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CITY agrees as follows: 4.2.1. Fee Rates. The presently adopted Development Impact Fees, as defined in Section 1.7 herein, and currently charged by the CITY shall be imposed upon Development within the jurisdiction of this Agreement at the rate in effect as of the 641384 02/06/2001 -13- Effective Date. The CITY hereby agrees that neither the Property nor the Development shall be subject to any new or revised fees or charges, including, without limitation, Development Impact Fees, or any land use regulations (excluding Section 3.3 and 3.4.1) that the CITY may enact, adopt, or impose on or after the Effective Date; provided, however, that nothing in this Section 4.2.1 shall, or shall be construed to, prohibit or prevent the CITY from enforcing fees, charges, or land use regulations relating to retail purchasers or End Users, including, without limitation, trash can placement and limitations on vehicle parking and End Users improvements to property; and provided further that on a case-by-case basis and subject to the CITY's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, OWNER may elect to have the Development and the Project governed by land use regulations made available to other owners and developers after the Effective Date. 4.2.2. Future Development Approval Fees/Processing and Application. OWNER shall pay the application and processing fees customarily imposed on the type of entitlement sought at the rate, and in the amount, imposed by CITY pursuant to the fee schedule, resolution or ordinance in effect at the time the application is deemed complete and accepted by CITY for action. 4.2.3 Fees for Public Art, Open Space and Habitat Preservation. Regardless of whether the CITY enacts, adopts, or imposes on or after the Effective Date any fees of any kind or description with respect to art in public places or to preservation of open space, OWNER agrees to pay the CITY the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) per individual residential dwelling unit, which funds the CITY shall use, in its discretion, in connection with art in public places, open space preservation, and/or habitat preservation. 4.2.4 TUMF Fees. The CITY and OWNER acknowledge that a Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (the "TUMF") program is currently being considered and that no such TUMF has been adopted by the County of Riverside or by the CITY. To the extent a TUMF is adopted by the CITY, the CITY and OWNER agree that OWNER's obligations under TUMF shall be deemed satisfied through: (i) OWNER's or the Property's participation in and payment of prior assessments assessed under Assessment District 159; (ii) any future assessments or assessment liens paid by OWNER or the Property assessed under Assessment District 159; (iii) all Off-site improvements to be constructed or financed by OWNER under this Agreement; (iv) OWNER's participation in the CFD provided for in Section 4.6 of this Agreement or in any other financing mechanism mutually agreed upon by the CITY and OWNER; (v) OWNER's agreement to dedicate to the CITY and/or a district such rights of way as may be required for Off-site Improvements including, but not limited to, drainage and roadway facilities, including, Pala Road, Deer Hollow Road, Wolf Valley Road, and Loma Linda Road; and (vi) OWNER's agreement to waive any right of or claim for reimbursement from the TUMF program with respect to the payment of such assessments, the construction of such improvements, and/or the dedication of such rights of way. 641384 02/06/2001 -14- 4.2.5 Credit for Development Impact Fees. Provided' all condition precedents imposed on each of the credits for the various D.I.F. components set forth below are satisfied, CITY shall, upon the Effective Date or upon the date specified hereunder, credit OWNER for such D.I.F. component and consider the same components paid in full. All other D.I.F. not referenced hereunder shall be paid in full by OWNER at the time such fee is customarily due and payable to the CITY. The D.I.F. credits are: (i) Fire Protection Facilities Fee - Residential Component Only (100%). The CITY shall credit to OWNER, and deem paid One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Fire Protection Facilities fee attributable only to residential development immediately after the CITY has been offered, and has accepted a grant deed to the 1.5 acre site, which site is referenced in Section 4.4.2 of this Agreement. OWNER shall pay One Hundred percent (100%) of the Fire Protection Facilities Fee component assessed against commercial development. (ii) Corporate Facilities Residential Fee Component. Provided that the CITY has accepted a grant deed to the certain 1.63 acre site in Planning Area 10 (described on Attachment 7) that OWNER has offered to the CITY, the CITY shall credit OWNER the total amount of Two Hundred Ninety-seven Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-two Dollars ($297,522.00) against the One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Corporate Facilities Residential Fee Component. Notwithstanding the partial credit, the CITY shall require OWNER to pay the sum of Two Hundred Thirty-two Dollars and Eighty-two Cents ($232.82) per single-family detached residential unit and One Hundred Twenty-three Dollars and Seventy-five Cents ($123.75) per single-family attached residential unit in full satisfaction of the Corporate Facilities Fee residential component. In the event the CITY does not accept OWNER's offer of the grant deed, OWNER shall pay One Hundred percent (100%) of the Corporate Facilities Fee - Residential component. Regardless of CITY acceptance or not of the offered real property, OWNER shall pay the commercial component of the Corporate Facilities Fee. Unless and until the CITY accepts OWNER's offer, OWNER shall pay the Corporate Facilities Fee for both the residential and commercial components when each is customarily due and payable. If the CITY accepts the offer any monies paid by OWNER on account of the residential component shall, at the election of OWNER, be returned to OWNER or remain on account as a credit against other fees due to the CITY. Notwithstanding the foregoing OWNER agrees, upon the CITY's request, to sell the CITY merchantable fee title to the 1.63 acre site at a price that is the equivalent of the Corporate Facilities Residential Fee Component. If the CITY purchases the 1.63 acre site, then OWNER shall not be accorded any credits. (iii) Park Fee Component (Regional Park). Provided OWNER has provided a grant deed to the CITY to the contiguous forty (40) acre site described on Attachment 8 and has improved the site to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Services as referenced in Section 4.4.3, in conformance with this Agreement and has satisfied all condition precedents expressly relating to the Regional Park in the Development Plan, the CITY shall credit to OWNER the sum of 641384 02/06/2001 - 15- Two Million Eight Hundred Sixty-four Thousand One Hundred Twenty-seven Dollars ($2,864,127.00) against the total park fee of Three Million .Six Hundred Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty-seven Dollars ($3,614,127.00). (iv) Park Fee Component (Neighborhood and Linear Parks). Provided OWNER has improved, as required by the Development Plan, and has offered and the CITY has accepted a grant deed to the six (6) acre Neighborhood Park and the six and seven tenths acre (6.7) Linear Park, as described in the Development Plan, the CITY shall credit to OWNER the total sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) against the total Park fee component of Three Million Six Hundred Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty-seven Dollars ($3,614,127.00). The credit shall be allocated as follows: Six Hundred Thousand Dollars for the Neighborhood Park One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars for the Linear Park The City agrees that OWNER shall not be obligated to expend monies in excess of the respective credits to improve the Neighbor and Linear Parks. (v) Street Improvement and Traffic Siqnal Fee Component. One hundred percent (100%) of the street and traffic signal fee component shall be credited to OWNER in consideration of OWNER's contribution to the Off-site Improvements related to Pala Road and Deer Hollow as described on Attachment 5. 4.3. Dedications and Exactions. Future Development Approvals will be reviewed in a manner consistent with the general review procedures of the CITY accorded the particular type of Future Development Approval being sought and necessary conditions imposed in a manner consistent with this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the health, safety and general welfare based mitigation measures arising from the future Development Approvals shall not be limited by this Agreement. 4.4. Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development Agreement. 4.4.1. Intent of the Parties. The CITY and OWNER agree that the timely completion and performance of the real estate transactions and the related agreements described hereafter are a material component of the consideration each party has relied upon in its respective decision to enter into this Agreement. OWNER and the CITY, individually and collectively, represent that neither party would have entered into this Agreement but for the promises of the other to transfer the interests in real property described hereunder to the other party and to enter into the related agreements. Further, OWNER and the CITY, individually and collectively, agree that the failure of any one of the conveyances or related agreements to be completed or performed in a timely manner will be an event of default under Section 10 of this Agreement. OWNER expressly acknowledges that the Street and Right-of-Way Improvements adjacent to 641384 02/06/2001 -16- the real property to be conveyed shall be completed to CITY's reasonable satisfaction as described in this Agreement. 4.4.2. Fire Station and Civic Use Sites. OWNER has agreed to dedicate to the CITY approximately 1.5 acres net of the public right of way and useable for the CITY's purposes of raw land in Planning Area 14 of the Specific Plan to be used as a location for a fire station ("Fire Station Parcel") improved only with Street and Right-of-Way Improvements. OWNER further agrees to grant an option to the CITY to accept OWNER's offer to grant an additional 1.63 acres of raw land, improved only with Street and Right-of-Way improvements, in Planning Area 10 to be used for civic purposes (the "Civic Use Parcel"). The Civic Use Parcel shall be contiguous to the 1.5 acre fire station site or shall be in such other location as the parties may mutually agree. Both the Fire Station Parcel and the Civic Use Parcel are conceptually shown on Attachment 7. A. Fire Station Parcel. The Fire Station Parcel conveyance is subject to the following conditions. (i) OWNER shall convey the parcel by grant deed to the CITY as provided for in Section 4.4.5. The condition of title shall be demonstrated by an CLTA title insurance policy, without exceptions, provided to the CITY by OWNER in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy-three Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-three Dollars ($273,793.00). (ii) OWNER shall convey the parcel on or before One Hundred Eighty (180) days have lapsed after the Effective Date. (iii) OWNER shall, on or before thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date the permanent fire station become operational, complete the Street and Right- of-Way Improvements to standard CITY specifications. (iv) OWNER shall designate a site to be used for a temporary fire station. The OWNER shall improve equip and fund the operations of the temporary fire station as set forth in Section 4.5.1. (v) OWNER shall provide monies to complete the CITY's construction of the permanent fire station upon CITY proof, by reasonable evidence, that the CITY does not have adequate monies in its D.I.F. - Fire facilities fund to complete the construction and equipping of the station. OWNER shall deliver the monies, in an amount not to exceed Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000.00), upon request by the CITY. The CITY agrees to repay OWNER the full amount of the sums advanced, without interest, from monies actually collected by CITY from the D.I.F. Fire Facilities Fee component (both residential and commercial components) or any monies provided to the City from any source, which monies are earmarked for the construction of the subject fire station. The CITY hereby grants OWNER a first priority security interest in such monies, and agrees that it shall not, subsequent to the 641384 02/06/2001 -17- Effective Date, pledge guarantee or otherwise reallocate the subject monies to any other person or entity. The CITY agrees that it shall execute necessary documents to demonstrate the foregoing grant of a security interest in the subject monies. The CITY shall, on a quarterly basis, deliver the collected monies to OWNER. The CITY shall have no obligation to pay OWNER monies from any source other than the subject monies and shall not be obligated to cause OWNER to be reimbursed by any specific date. In further consideration of the acceptance of the Fire Station Parcel, the CITY will accord the credits set forth in Section 4.2.5(i) and further: (vi) The CITY shall be solely responsible for the costs and expenses to design, construct and outfit the permanent fire station except as set forth in the Development Plan and this Agreement. (vii) The CITY shall begin the design of the permanent fire station on the Effective Date of this Agreement and further shall use its best efforts to cause the Fire Station to be constructed at the earliest possible date. B. Civic Use Parcel. The CITY shall have twelve (12) calendar months from the Effective Date to exercise its acceptance of the option and to accept fee title. OWNER shall convey the Civic Use Parcel to the CITY by grant deed as provided for in Section 4.4.5. The condition of title shall be demonstrated by delivery of an CLTA title insurance policy, without exceptions, to the benefit of the CITY, in the amount of either the acquisition price or the fee credit. The CITY may elect to purchase the Civic Use Parcel pursuant to the terms specified in this Agreement. C. CITY's Riqht of Entry. OWNER agrees to grant the CITY a right of entry effective on the Effective Date of this Agreement for purposes of real property inspection, survey, grading and all activities the CITY deems necessary to further the construction of the permanent fire station. All activities conducted by the CITY on the real property shall be at the CITY's sole cost and expense. The CITY shall indemnify and hold Owner and the real property harmless from any loss, claim or damage (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of litigation) arising out of, or resulting from, the CITY's work and activity upon the real property or mechanics' liens or claims of liens based thereon. CITY shall be entitled to contest any mechanics' lien or claim of lien provided the CITY shall post and record a bond satisfying the requirements of the laws of the Stat.e of California. 4.4.3. Parks. OWNER is required pursuant to the Development Plan to dedicate certain acreage of the Project to the City for use as public parks. Additionally OWNER has agreed to dedicate additional land and as described below, to construct, at its sole expense, the improvements for certain public parks and facilities, and to devote certain acreage of the Project for use as recreational facilities for the residents of the Project. OWNER's mandatory and voluntary dedication and/or construction of such public parks and facilities and private recreational facilities shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: 641384 02/06/2001 -18- (i) All real property shall be conveyed as provided for in Section 4.4.5. OWNER shall demonstrate the condition of title pursuant to CLTA title insurance policies, without exemptions, in amount equal to the fair market value of the land. (ii) OWNER agrees to convey fee title to the CITY on or before One Hundred Eighty (180) days have lapsed after the Effective Date, as is and without constructing any park improvements, 1.5 acres in Planning Area 4 of the Specific Plan for Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. (iii) Owner agrees to convey fee title to the CITY after the improvement, and the lapse of the ninety (90) day maintenance period, 6 acres in Planning Area 11 of the Specific Plan for the Neighborhood Park. The six-acre Neighborhood Park shall be improved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Services, the ninety (90) day maintenance period shall have lapsed and the conveyance shall have occurred on or before the issuance of the 600th building permit within the Project. (iv) Owner agrees to convey fee title to the CITY and improve, per the conditions in the Development Plan, 6.7 acres for Linear Park and the Activity Nodes. The first phase north of Wolf Valley Road shall be completed and the ninety (90) day maintenance period shall have lapsed prior to the issuance of the 400t~ building permit within the Project. The second phase, comprised of the area south of Wolf Valley Road shall be improved and the ninety (90) day maintenance period shall have lapsed prior to the issuance of the 1400th building permit in the Project. (v) OWNER agrees to devote approximately 3.5 acres in Planning Area 14 of the Specific Plan for a recreational facility to be used by the residents of the Project. (vi) OWNER agrees to convey fee title by grant deed to the CITY of 40 acres in Planning Area 24 of the Specific Plan for the Regional Park as shown on Attachment 8. Except for the following, the CITY shall be solely responsible for the costs and expenses of the design and construction of the Regional Park, which design and construction shall be commenced immediately following OWNER's conveyance of the 40 acres to the CITY. OWNER shall, at its own cost and immediately upon request by the CITY initiate and complete the construction of a twenty-four foot wide (24') all weather roadway to the standards established by the CITY, within the Deer Hollow Road right-of-way. The two lanes shall commence at Pala Road and shall terminate at the point that the Community Services Director of City shall designate. This requirement shall terminate if the school district, or any third party, completes such improvements of Deer Hollow Road prior to the date the CITY requests the construction to be initiated. 641384 02/06/2001 -I9- Of the 40 acres comprising the Regional Park, OWNER's dedication of (i) 1.5.69 acres shall satisfy a portion of OWNER's obligations under the park component of the D.I.F. as provided for in Section 4.2.5; (ii) 12.29 acres for satisfying Quimby requirements; (iii) and OWNER's dedication of the remaining 12.02 acres shall constitute a gift to the CITY. 4.4.4. Quimby Credits. Upon improvement, actual conveyance to and acceptance by CITY of the parkland referenced above the CITY hereby agrees to credit OWNER's obligations of 28.23 acres under CITY's subdivision/Quimby parkland acreage requirements as satisfied and CITY shall not exact any further contribution from OWNER. (i) Regional Park - 12.29 acres of the total 40 acres. (ii) 1.5 acres in Planning Area 4 of the Specific Plan at Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park. Neighborhood Park. 6 acres in Planning Area 11 of the Specific Plan for the (iv) 6.7 acres in lots 30, 45, 46, and 47 of Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 for the Linear Park and the Activity Nodes. (v) A credit equal to fifty percent (50%) of the acreage devoted to any other private recreational facilities in the Project. 4.4.5 Liens, Encumbrances and Environmental Conditions. All real property dedicated to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be free and clear of any and all matters of record (excepting all non-delinquent taxes and assessments), including but not limited to, deeds of trust, liens, or other encumbrances of record that would prevent the CITY from using such dedicated facility for its intended use as identified herein. Further the real property shall be warranted to be free of any known environmental conditions that would prevent, restrict or cause the CITY to fund hazardous material/contamination/toxic remediation activities so as to allow the real property to be used as intended by the CITY. Owner shall provide the CITY copies of all reports, investigations and analysis that discuss the environmental condition of the real property. 4.5. Additional Public Improvements/Performance Standard. 4.5.1. Temporary Fire Station. In the event OWNER desires to obtain building permits for any improvements outside of Planning Area 1 through 6 of the Specific Plan prior to the completion of the permanent fire station, then OWNER shall, prior to the issuance of the building permits in Planning Areas 7 through 24 of the Specific Plan, at its own sole cost and expense complete the following: 641384 02/06/2001 -20- (i) Obtain the Fire Chiefs approval of (a) the site selected for a temporary station and (b) the scope of improvements, on and offsite for the temporary station; (ii) Obtain all necessary permits and entitlements for the improvement of the temporary fire station; (iii) Construct/improve the site consistent with the approvals and permits issued for the temporary station; (iv) Provide and/or fund, at the sole discretion of the Fire Chief, the equipment and personnel made necessary to appropriately operate the temporary fire station. The temporary station shall operate until the permanent fire station is deemed sufficiently operational, by the Fire Chief, so as to respond to the five-minute service needs within the Specific Plan. 4.5.2. Sound Wall. In the event the CITY determines a sound wall is required after review of the acoustic study discussed below, OWNER shall be solely responsible for funding the cost of constructing a minimum height six foot wall intended to buffer and attenuate sound, along the Pala Road corridor from Wolf Valley Road to Club House Road. The specific location, height and construction materials shall be determined by the recommendations set forth in a noise attenuation acoustical study to be commissioned by and funded by OWNER as approved by the CITY. The study shall utilize the standards and criteria set forth in the City's General Plan as the standard that noise level must be mitigated to conform with. The study shall be commenced not less than thirty (30) calendar days after the Effective Date. The CITY shall present the findings of the study to the effected residents and, upon the consent of the necessary property owners, shall determine if the sound attenuation wall should be constructed. In the event all necessary property owners do not consent to the construction of the sound attenuation wall then the wall shall not be constructed. The construction of the sound attenuation wall described as necessary by the study shall be funded by the OWNER and constructed as an element of and developed concurrently with the Off- sight Improvements listed in Section 1.14. The CITY shall contribute funds, to the extent available, derived from third parties to OWNER to assist in funding the attenuation wall construction and further shall use its best efforts to cause third parties to contribute to the cost of the attenuation wall construction. 4.5.3. Pala Road/Drainage Facilities. The CITY acknowledges that the Pala Road improvements (as defined in the Development Plan) and drainage facilities from Deer Hollow Road to Temecula Creek shall be constructed by OWNER consistent with the Development Plan. 641384 02/06/2001 -21- 4,6. Offsite Improvement Funding. The CITY and OWNER agree that the improvements defined in Section 1.14 of this Agreement are necessary for the beneficial development of the Development. Both further agree that the funding of the Off-site Improvements is anticipated to be as set forth hereunder: (i) OWNER's share. OWNER's fair share of the necessary funding shall be derived from a community facilities district (the "CFD") or some other mutually acceptable funding mechanism. OWNER's fair share shall be utilized to fund that portion of the Off-site Improvements shown by a benefit assessment engineering study, to be attributable to the impacts arising from the Development. The CFD or other funding mechanism shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit to OWNER. (ii) Remainder share. The remainder of the monies necessary to construct the Off-site Improvements not funded by the OWNER shall come from non- City sources legally responsible or who otherwise elect to participate is such funding. (iii) In the event OWNER elects, or is required to contribute funds that are not supported by the engineering study discussed in Subsection (i) above, then OWNER shall be reimbursed the principal amount of those excessive expenditures from the monies actually collected under Subsection (ii) above. 4.7. Entitlements. 4.7.1 Tentative Tract Map. The CITY hereby agrees that tentative tract maps for the Project approved by the CITY shall have an initial term of five (5) years and may be extended upon prior written request of OWNER, for two additional terms of two (2) years each. In the event this Agreement has lapsed, the CITY's standards applicable to the Development Plan shall regulate the subdivision process. 4.7.2 Lot Line Adjustments. Adjustments to lot lines required for. purposes beneficial to the Project, including, without limitation, refinement and enhancement of the specific plan and grant deeds, shall be processed on an "administrative approval" basis only. 4.8 Use Restrictions. OWNER agrees to place such restrictions, prohibitions, etc. as are reasonably necessary on the title to the real property located in Planning Areas 12 and 13 such that an anchor tenant or End User in one such Planning Area cannot restrict, prohibit, or otherwise limit the land use by a tenant or End User in the other such Planning Area. 641384 02/06/2001 - 22- 5. Further Assurances to OWNER Regarding Exercise of Reserved Authority. 5.1. Adoption of General Plan and Granting of Other Project Approvals. In preparing and adopting any general plan amendment, zoning district change and in granting the other Project Approvals, the CITY reserves its right to and shall consider the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the CITY. 5.2. Assurances to OWNER. The parties further acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement are in consideration for and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. Accordingly, while recognizing that the Development of the Property may be affected by exercise of the authority and rights reserved and excepted as provided in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. ("Reserved Authority") or this Agreement, OWNER is concerned that normally the judiciary extends to local agencies significant deference in the adoption of land use regulations which might permit the CITY in violation of the Reserved Authority, to attempt to apply regulations which are inconsistent with the Project Approvals pursuant to the exercise of the Reserved Authority. Accordingly, OWNER desires assurances that the CITY shall not and the CITY agrees that it shall not further restrict or limit the development of the Property in violation of this Agreement except in strict accordance with the Reserved Authority. 5.3. Judicial Review. Based on the foregoing, in the event OWNER judicially (including by way of a reference proceeding) challenges the application of a future land use regulation as being in violation of this Agreement and as not being a land use regulation adopted pursuant to the Reserved Authority, OWNER shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that such rule, regulation or policy is inconsistent with the Existing Regulations and the Project Approvals and the CITY shall thereafter bear the burden of proof in establishing that such regulation was adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the Reserved Authority and was not applied by the CITY in violation of this Agreement. 6. Indemnification. Except to the extent of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties (as defined below), OWNER, and with respect to the portion of the Property transferred to them, the transferee agree: (i) to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against each and every claim, action, proceeding, .cost, fee, legal cost, damage, award or liability of any nature arising from alleged damages caused to third parties and alleging that the CITY is liable therefore as a direct or indirect result of the CITY's approval of this Development Agreement. OWNER's duties under this Section 6(i) are solely subject to and conditioned upon the indemnified Parties' written request to OWNER to defend and/or indemnify the CITY. Without in any way limiting the provisions of this Section 6(i), the parties hereto agree that this Section 6(i) shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2778 in effect as of the Agreement Date. 641384 02/06/2001 -23- (ii) during the term of this Agreement, to defend the CITY and its agents, officers, contractors, attorney, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any claims or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to set aside, void or annul the approval of this Development Agreement. The CITY shall retain settlement authority with respect to any matter provided that prior to settling any such lawsuit or claim, OWNER shall provide the CITY with a minimum ten (10) business days written notice of its intent to settle such lawsuit or claim. If the CITY (in its reasonable discretion) does not desire to settle such lawsuit or claim, it may notify OWNER of the same, in which event OWNER may still elect to settle the lawsuit or claim as to itself, but the CITY may elect to continue such lawsuit, but at OWNER's cost and expense, so long as the CITY's decision is predicated upon a legitimate and articulated threat to either the exercise of its police powers or a risk of harm to those present within the CITY. 7. Relationship of Parties. The contractual relationship between the CITY and OWNER is such that OWNER is an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the CITY. The CITY and OWNER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with the Project shall be construed as making the CITY and OWNER joint ventures or partners. 8. Amendment or Cancellation of A,qreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the parties in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868. No amendment or modification of this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party hereto. This provision shall not limit the CITY's or OWNER's remedies as provided by Section 10. 9. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. 9.1. Periodic Review. The CITY and OWNER shall review this Agreement at least once every 12-month period from the Effective Date. The CITY shall notify OWNER in writing of the date for review at least thirty (30) days prior thereto. Such periodic review shall be conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1. 9.2. Good Faith Compliance. During each periodic review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNER agrees to furnish such reasonable evidence of good faith compliance as the CITY, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require. If requested by OWNER, the CITY agrees to provide to OWNER, a certificate that OWNER or a successor or assignee is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, provided OWNER reimburses the CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the CITY with respect thereto. 641384 02/06/2001 -24- 9.3. Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure of the CITY to conduct the annual review shall not be an OWNER default. Further, OWNER shall not be entitled to any remedy for the CITY's failure to conduct this annual review. 9.4. Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to OWNER. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the CITY Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the same manner as provided for the annual review. The City Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 9.4 only if it has probable cause to believe the CITY's general health, safety or welfare is at risk as a result of specific acts or failures to act by OWNER. 9.5. Administration of Agreement. Any final decision by the CITY staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by OWNER to the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after OWNER receives written notice that the staff decision is final. The City Council shall render, at a noticed public hearing, its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the appeal was filed. 9.6. Availability of Documents. If requested by OWNER, the CITY agrees to provide to OWNER copies of any documents, reports or other items reviewed, accumulated or prepared by or for the CITY in connection with any periodic compliance review by the CITY, provided OWNER reimburses the CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the CITY with respect thereto. The CITY shall respond to OWNER's request on or before ten (10) business days have elapsed from the CITY's receipt of such request. 10. Events of Default: Remedies and Termination. Unless amended or canceled as provided in Section 8, or modified or suspended pursuant to Government Code Section 65869.5 or terminated pursuant to this Section 10, this Agreement is enforceable by either party hereto. 10.'1. Defaults by Owner. If the CITY determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the CITY shall, by written notice to OWNER, specify the manner in which OWNER has failed to so comply and state the steps OWNER must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) days after the effective date of notice from the CITY specifying the manner in which OWNER has failed to so comply, OWNER does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then OWNER shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement. The CITY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1. OWNER agrees that its default hereunder is a conclusive representation that Jt is consenting to the cancellation of this Agreement. In event of 641384 02/06/2001 -25- default by OWNER, except as provided in Section 10.3, the CITY's sole remedy for any breach of this Agreement by OWNER shall be the CITY's right to terminate this Agreement. 10.2. Defaults by CITY. If OWNER determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that the CITY has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, OWNER shall, by written notice to the CITY, specify the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply and state the steps the CITY must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) days after the effective date of notice from OWNER specifying the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply, the CITY does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then the CITY shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and OWNER may terminate this Agreement and, in addition, may pursue any other remedy available at law or equity, including specific performance as set forth in Section 10.3. 10.3. Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, the CITY and OWNER agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the CITY fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that OWNER shall have the right to seek and obtain specific performance as a remedy for any breach of this Agreement. The CITY and OWNER further acknowledge that, if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, the CITY shall have the right to refuse to issue any permits or other approvals which OWNER would otherwise have been entitled to pursuant to this Agreement. Therefore, the CITY's remedy of terminating this Agreement shall be sufficient in most circumstances if OWNER fails to carry out its obligations hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the CITY issues a permit or other approval pursuant to this Agreement in reliance (explicitly stated in writing) upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, the CITY shall be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing OWNER to satisfy such condition. The CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and the CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner. 641384 02/06/2001 -26- 10.4. Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, OWNER or the CITY may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal action shall be heard by a reference from the Riverside County Superior Court pursuant to the reference procedures of the California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638, et seq. OWNER and the CITY shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before him. If OWNER and the CITY are unable to agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either party hereto, either party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 10.4 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. 10.5. Estoppel Certificates. Either party may at any time deliver written notice to the other party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate") stating: 10.5.1 The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the parties. 10.5.2 The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if so amended, identifying the amendments. 10.5.3 No default in the performance of the requesting party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. A party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager may sign Estoppel Certificates on behalf of the CITY. Any officer of OWNER may sign on behalf of OWNER. An Estoppel Certificate may be relied on by assignees and mortgagees. 10.5.4 In the event that one party requests an Estoppel Certificate from the other, the requesting party shall reimburse the other party for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by such party with respect thereto. 11. Waivers and Delays. 11.1. No Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, and failure by a party to exercise its rights upon a default by the other party hereto, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the future. 641384 02/06/2001 -27- 11.2. Third Parties. Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third person, except as provided in Section 11.3 11.3. Force Maieure. OWNER shall not be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond OWNER's control, government regulations (including, without limitation, local, state and federal environmental and natural resource regulations), voter initiative or referenda, moratoria (including, without limitation, any "development moratorium" as that term is applied in Government Code Section 66452.6) or judicial decisions. 11.4. Extensions. The Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by OWNER or the CITY of any of its obligations hereunder or pursuant to the Project Approvals shall be extended by the period of time that any of the events described in Section 11.3 exist and/or prevent performance of such obligations. In addition, the Term shall be extended for delays arising from the following events for a time equal to the duration of each delay which occurs during the Term: 11.4.1. Litigation. The period of time after the Effective Date during which litigation related to the Project Approvals or having the actual effect of delaying implementation of the Project is pending, including litigation pending on the Effective Date. This period shall include any time during which appeals may be filed or are pending. 11.4.2. Government Agencies. Any delay resulting from the acts or omissions of the CiTY or any other governmental agency or public utility and beyond the reasonable control of OWNER except those related to the normal and customary processing of Future Development Approvals or any modifications to the Development Plan. 11.5. Notice of Delay. OWNER shall give notice to the CITY of any delay which OWNER believes to have occurred as a result of the occurrence of any of the events described in Section 11.3. For delays of six months or longer, this notice shall be given within a reasonable time after OWNER becomes aware that the delay has lasted six months or more. In no event, however, shall notice of a delay of any length be given later than thirty days after the end of the delay or thirty days before the end of the Term, whichever comes first. 12. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Notices required to be given to the CITY shall be addressed as follows: 641384 02/06/2001 - 28- City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Planning Director With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon Thirty-Eighth Floor 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-1469 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Notices required to be given to OWNER shall be addressed as follows: S-Pacific Murdy, LLC 10630 Town Center Drive, Suite 129 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: William Griffith With a copy to: Alhadeff & Solar, LLP 41530 Enterprise Circle South, Suite 120 Temecula, CA 92590-4677 Attention: Samuel C. AIhadeff, Esq. Any notice given as required herein shall be deemed given only if in writing and upon delivery personally or by independent courier service. A party may change its address for notices by giving notice in writing to the other party as required herein and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 13. Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by either party against the other for breach of this Agreement, including actions derivative from the performance of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and shall also be entitled to recover its contribution for the costs of the referee referred to in Section 10.4 above as an item of damage and/or recoverable costs. 14. Recordinq. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation hereto shall be recorded, at no cost to the CITY; in the Official Records of Riverside County by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. 641384 02/06/2001 - 29- 15. Effect of Agreement on Title. 15.1. Effect on Title. OWNER and the CITY agree that this Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated. 15.2. Encumbrances and Lenders' Rights. OWNER and the CITY hereby agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit any owner of any interest in the Property, or any portion thereof, at any time or from time to time in any manner, at its or their sole discretion, from encumbering the Property, the improvements thereon, or any portion thereof with any mortgage, deed of trust sale and leaseback arrangement or other security device. The CITY acknowledges that any Lender (as hereinafter defined) may require certain interpretations of or modifications to the Agreement or the project and the CITY agrees, upon request, from time to time, to meet with the property owner(s) and/or representatives of such Lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. The CITY further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification to the extent such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement. A default under this Agreement shall not defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Lender. The mortgagee of a mortgage or beneficiary of a deed of trust or holder of any other security interest in the Property or any portion thereof and their successors and assigns, including without limitation the purchaser at a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure sale or a person or entity which obtains title by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure ("Lender") shall be entitled to receive a copy of any notice of Default (as defined in Section 10.1 hereof) delivered to OWNER and, as a pre-condition to the institution of legal proceedings or termination proceedings, the CITY shall deliver to all such Lenders written notification of any default by OWNER in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement which is not cured within sixty (60) days (the "Second Default Notice") and shall allow the Lender(s) an opportunity to cure such defaults as set forth herein. The Second Notice of Default shall specify in detail the alleged default and the suggested means to cure it. After receipt of the Second Default Notice, each such Lender shall have the right, at its sole option, within ninety (90) days to cure such default or, if such default cannot reasonably be cured within that ninety (90) day period, to commence to cure such default, in which case no default shall exist and the CITY shall take no further action. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such default shall be a default which can only be remedied by such Lender obtaining possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, and such Lender seeks to obtain possession, such Lender shall have until ninety (90) days after the date obtaining such possession to cure or, if such default cannot reasonably be cured within such period, then to commence to cure such default. Further, a Lender shall not be required to cure any non-curable default of OWNER, and any such default shall be deemed cured if any lender obtains possession. 641384 02/06/2001 -30- 16. Severability of Terms. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if the tribunal finds that the invalidity was not a material part of consideration for either party. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants. The covenants contained herein constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party. 17. Subsequent Amendment to Authorizinq Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation in effect as of the Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 3.3.2 above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enforceable or required by law or unless this Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Agreement Date. 18. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms. 18.1. Interpretation and Governing Law. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of the CITY, and in particular, the CiTY's police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY's governmental powers over the Property. 18.2. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 18.3. Gender. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. 18.4. No Joint and Several Liability. At any time that there is more than one OWNER, no breach hereof by an OWNER shall constitute a breach by any other OWNER. Any remedy, obligation, or liability, including but not limited to the obligations to defend and indemnify the CITY, arising by reason of such breach shall be applicable solely to the OWNER that committed the breach. However, the CITY shall send a copy of any notice of violation to all OWNERS, including those not in breach. 18.5. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of 641384 02/06/2001 -31- this Agreement of which time is an element. '18.6. Recitals. All Recitals set forth herein are incorporated in this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. '18.7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and the Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussion and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 19. Extension of Maps. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a), any tentative map approved which relates to all or a portion of the Property shall be extended for the greater of (i) the Term of the Agreement or (ii) expiration of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452.6. 20. Not for Benefit of Third Parties. This Agreement and all provisions hereof are for the exclusive benefit of the CITY and OWNER and its Development Transferees and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any third party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year dated below. Dated: ,2001 "CITY" CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation By: Name: Title: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 641384 02/06/2001 - 32- Dated: ,2001 "OWNER" S-P MURDY, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: Tithe: 641384 02/06/2001 - 33 - State of California ) ) ss County of Riverside ) On before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary State of California ) ) ss County of Riverside ) On before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/hedtheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary 641384. 02/06/2001 -34- ATTACHMENT "1" (Legal Description) 641384 02/06/2001 -35 - ATTACHMENT 1 PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO TEMECULA IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO LUIS VIGNES BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1860 AND RECORDED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1N LIBER 1 OF PATENTS AT PAGE 37 THEREOF; THAT PORTION OF THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO, IN SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AS SHOWN BY MAP ENTITLED "PARTITION MAP OF THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO" ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, IN ACT NO. 5756 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY; AND THAT PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, APRIL 10, 1886, WHICH LIES WITHIN THE FOLLOWS DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: COMMENCING AT A 6" X 6" CONCRETE MONUMENT AT TIlE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 16° 18' 39" WEST AND A LENGTH OF 317.75 FEET AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 3552, ON FILE IN BOOK 56 PAGES 63 TO 66, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 16°18' 39" WEST ALONG SAID CERTAIN COURSE, 45.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57° 55' 45" EAST, 2,083.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64° 09' 59" EAST, 367.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58° 19' 39" EAST, 741.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE sOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 716.30 FEET; THENCE SoLrrHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 15' 47" A DISTANCE OF 215.82 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 41° 03' 42" EAST, 378.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 955.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 15' 47" A DISTANCE OF 237.74 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 55° 19' 29" EAST, 601.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13° 54' 30" A DISTANCE OF 242.75 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 69° 13' 59" EAST, 99.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUql-lWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,350.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21 ° 29' 23" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 881.41 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST, 2,543.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION, SAID POINT BEING A 2" IRON PIPE 12-INCHES BELOW A SURFACE OF PAVEMENT AND ACCEPTED AS THE CENTER LINE OF PALA ROAD PER RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROAD RECORD, ON FILE IN BOOK 1 PAGE 83 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAID COUNTY AND AS SHOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL SURVEYS FIELD BOOK 445 PAGE 53, AND FROM WHICH A 3/4" IRON PIPE, FOUND 15-INCHES BELOW A PAVEMENT SURFACE AND SHOWN AS 0+00 IN SAID COUNTY FIELD BOOK 445 PAGE 52, BEARS SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST, 5,825.29 FEET, AND ACCEPTED AS THE CENTER LINE OF SAID PALA ROAD; THENCE, FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF PALA ROAD, 2,821.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42° 13' 58" EAST, 2,759.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 65 ° 15' 30" WEST, 321.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4° 18' 36" EAST, 173.52 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,200.00 FEET, TO WHICH A RADIAL BEARS SOUTH 4° 18' 36" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1,035.69 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 490 27' 02"; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE, NORTH 36° 14' 22" WEST, 705.33 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,500.00 FEET, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL BEARS SOUTH 36° 14' 22" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13° 51' 06" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 604.39 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 67° 36' 44" WEST 734.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,400.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, 1,048.40 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25° 01' 43"; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 42° 36' 01' WEST, 461.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THEREFROM THE soUTHWEsTERLY 30.00 FEET OF THE FIRST PROPERTY ABOVE DESCRIBED FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FOR PALA ROAD AS RESERVED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PER SAID PARTITION MAP OF THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO AND SAID ROAD RECORD BOOK 1 PAGE 83. PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO TEMECULA IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO LUIS VIGNES BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1860 AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IN LIBER 1 OF PATENTS AT PAGE 37 THEREOF, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THAT PORTION OF THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO, IN SAID RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "PARTITION OF MAP OF THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO" ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, IN ACTION NO. 5756 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY; AND THAT PORTION OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH. RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, APRIL 10, 1886, WHICH LIES WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: COMMENCING AT A 6" X 6" CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 16°18' 39" WEST AND A LENGTH OF 317.75 FEET AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 3552, AS SHOW2q BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 56 PAGES 63 TO 66, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFOKNIA; THENCE NORTH 16° 18' 39" WEST ALONG SAID CERTAIN COURSE, 45.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57° 55' 45" EAST, 2,083.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64° 09' 59" EAST, 367.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58° 19' 29" EAST, 741.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 716.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 15' 47" A DISTANCE OF 215.82 FEET; TI-IENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 41 o 03' 42" EAST, 378.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 955.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 15' 47" A DISTANCE OF 237.74 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 55° 19' 29" EAST, 601.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLy ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13 o 54' 30" A DISTANCE OF 242.75 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 69° 13' 59" EAST, 99.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,350.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21 o 29' 23" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 881.41 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST, 2,543.13 FEET TO A 2" IRON PIPE 12-1NCHES BELOW THE SURFACE OF PAVEMENT ACCEPTED AS THE CENTER LINE OF PALA ROAD PER RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROAD RECORD ON FILE IN BOOK 1 PAGE 83 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAID COUNTY AND AS SHOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL SURVEYS FIELD BOOK 445 PAGE 53; THENCE CONTI2qUING SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST ALONG THE CENTER LINE, 2,821.42 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS I)ESCRIPTION: THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, 3,003.87 FEET TO A 3/4" IRON PIPE, FOUND 15 "BELOW PAVEMENT SURFACE AND SHOWN AS 0+00 IN SAID COUNTY FIELD BOOK 445 PAGE 52, AND ACCEPTING AS THE CENTER LINE OF SAID PALA ROAD; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST, 1,657.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLy LINE OF SAID LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO; THENCE SOUTH 53 ° 09' 19" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, 44.72 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, SAID LAST MENTIONED POINT LIES NORTH 50* 06' 54" WEST, 0.65 FEET FROM A FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE 12-INCHES DEEP PER SAID FIELD BOOK 445 PAGE 52, SAID 3/4" IRON PIPE BEING ACCEPTED AS LYING ON THE CENTER LINE OF PALA ROAD PER DEED PLAT MAP 25-L, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND PER QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED JULY 20, 1959 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 62786 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR PALA ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 50° 06' 54" EAST, 836.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET AND SHOWN ON SAID DEED PLAT 25-L AS P.C. 24+86.36; THENCE SO~ASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 172.34 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19° 44' 57"; THENCE SOUTH 30° 21' 57" EAST, 247.93 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 252.20 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 27' 00"; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE, SOUTH 44° 48' 57" EAST, 109.79 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID CENTER LINE OF PALA ROAD; THENCE NORTH 42 ° THENCE NORTH 24° THENCE NORTH 30° THENCE NORTH 61 ° THENCE NORTH 45 o THENCE NORTH 35 ° THENCE NORTH 53 ° 23' 59" EAST 49' 53" WEST 47' 27" WEST 01' 36" WEST 32' 22" WEST 26' 16" WEST 33' 32" WEST THENCE NORTH 65° 15' 30" WEST THENCE SOUTH 42° 13' 58" WES'I BEGINNING; 2,254.57 FEET; 832.36 FEET; 1,705.39 FEET; 617.25 FEET; 976.56 FEET; 978.72 FEET; 726.59 FEET; 634.63 FEET; 2,759.88 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY 30.00 FEET FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FOR PALA ROAD AS RESERVED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PER THE PARTITION MAP OF THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO, AND SAID ROAD ON FILE IN BOOK 1 PAGE 83, AND THAT PORTION OF SAID SECTION 28, AS INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 20, 1959 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 62786 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT No. 84987 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED "PARTITION MAP OF LITTLE TEMBCULA RANCHO" ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN ACTION NO. 5756, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A 6" X 6" CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 16° 18' 39" WEST AND A LENGTH OF 317.75 FEET AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 3552, ON FILE IN BOOK 56 PAGES 63 TO 66, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIPORNIA~ THENCE NORTH 16° 18' 39" WEST ALONG SAID CERTAIN COURSE, 45.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57° 55' 45" EAST, 2,083.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64° 09' 59" EAST, 367.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58° 19' 29" EAST, 741.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOLrFHWEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 716.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17° 15' 47" A DISTANCE OF 215.82 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 41 ° 03' 42" EAST, 378.41 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 955.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 15' 47" A DISTANCE OF 237.74 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 55° 19' 29" EAST, 601.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13° 54' 30" A DISTANCE OF 242.75 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 69° 13' 59" EAST, 99.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,350.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21° 29' 23" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 881.41 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST, 2,543.13 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING A 2" IRON PIPE 12-INCHES BELOW A SURFACE OF PAVEMENT AND ACCEPTED AS THE CENTERLINE OF PALA ROAD AS SHOWN IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL SURVEYS FIELD BOOK 445 PAGE 53; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 47° 44' 36" EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, 4,056.09 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID CENTER LINE TO BE KNOW AS POINT "A"; THENCE NORTH 42° 13' 58" EAST, 1,615.80 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,000.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09° 45' 32" A DISTANCE OF 681.30 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE NORTH 51 ° 59' 30" EAST, 722.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35° 26' 16" EAST, 709.90 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:~ THENCE NORTH 45 ° 58' 31" EAST, 416.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41° 19' 56" EAST, 442.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45° 48' 16" WEST, 415.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45° 32' 22" WEST, 265.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35° 26' 16" WEST, 180.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ATTACHMENT "2" (Specific Plan Development Standards) 641384 02/06/2001 -36- ATTACHMENT "3" (Zoning District Development Standards 641384 02/06/2001 -37- ATTACHMENT "4" (Existing Regulations) 641384 02/06/2001 -38- ATTACHMENT 5 OFF-SITE PALA ROAD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS The Pala Road off-site corridor improvements associated with the Development Agreement consist of full street improvements for Pala Road, Regional Drainage improvements along Pala Road, traffic signals and a sound attenuation wall. These improvements are more fully described as follows: Roadway Improvements Pala Road fi-om State Route 79 South to Via Gilberto, as a six lane Urban Arterial Highway - 134' R/W, including modification of the SR 79 / Pala Road intersection. Pala Road from Via Gilberto south to Fairview Road, as a four lane Arterial Highway - 110' RAV. Drainage Facilities Channel and drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and the City of Temecula requirements from Temecula Creek south to Fairview Road consisting of a trapezoidal channel storm drain, 4'x 10'x7' concrete box culvert, grass lined channel along Wolf Creek Specific Plan and roadway box culverts under Loma Linda Road, Wolf Valley Road and the Wolf Creek Interior Loop Roads (North and South). Traffic Signals & Interconnect Systems · Modification SR 79 / Pala Road · Modification Pala Road / Rainbow Canyon Road · Pala Road and Loma Linda Road · Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road · Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (North) · Pala Road and Clubhouse Drive · Pala Road and Muirfield Drive · Pala Road and Interior Loop Road (South) · Pala Road and Fairview Road Sound Attenuation Wall Planning, design and construction of a sound attenuation wall along the west side of Pala Road from Wolf Valley Road north to 500 feet south of Club House Drive. The work associated with the above roadway, drainage, signal and sound wall improvements includes but is not limited to design, right-of-way acquisition, removal of exist pavement, concrete, storm drains, fences concrete channels, grading, installation of street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, reconstruction of and connection to adjacent cross streets, signing and striping, traffic control, construction staging, temporary signals, utility relocations, environmental mitigation, landscaping & irrigation, pale ontological and archaeological monitoring, erosion control, construction of various utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, soils stabilization, and control dust. Z INTERIOR LOOP ROAD TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Definitions ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1. Authorizing Ordinance .................................................................................... 3 1.2. ClTY .................................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Citw Council ...................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Development ..................................................................................................... 3 1.5. Development Agreement Legislation ............................................................. 4 1.6. Development Fees ............................................................................................. 4 1.8 Development Plan ............................................................................................ 4 1.9 Effective Date .................................................................................................... 4 1.10 End User ........................................................................................................... 4 1.11 Existine Regulations ........................................................................................ 4 1.12 Future Development Approvals ...................................................................... 4 1.13 Non-end User .................................................................................................... 5 1.14 Off-site Improvements ..................................................................................... 5 1.15 On-site Improvements ..................................................................................... 5 1.16 OWNER ............................................................................................................ 5 1.17 Planning Commission ...................................................................................... 5 1.18 Proiect ............................................................................................................... 5 1.19 Proiect Approval .............................................................................................. 5 1.20 Specific Plan ..................................................................................................... 5 2. General Provisions ................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Binding Covenants ........................................................................................... 6 2.2. Interest of OWNER ......................................................................................... 6 2.3. Term .................................................................................................................. 6 2.4. Termination ...................................................................................................... 6 2.5. Transfers and Assignments ............................................................................. 7 2.5.1. Right to Transfer or Assign to End User ............................................... 7 2.5.2. Right to Assign to Non-End User ........................................................... 7 2.5.3. Rights and Duties of Successors and Assigns ........................................ 7 2.6. Amendment of Development Agreement ....................................................... 7 2.6.1. Initiation of Amendment ......................................................................... 8 2.6.2. Procedure ......................................... ~ ........................................................ 8 2.6.3. Consent ...................................................................................................... 8 2.6.4. Operating Memoranda ............................................................................ 8 3. Description of Development .................................................................................... 8 3.1. Development and Control of Development .................................................... 9 3.1.1. Proiect ....................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2. Timing of Development. A.) Except as set forth in the Development Plan and in Section 3.1.2B below, r ........................................................................... 9 3.1.3. Entitlements, Permits and Approvals - Cooperation ............................ 9 184051/6 2000.001/DRA FT 02601 ~9 3.2. Rules, Regulations and Official Policies ...................................................... 10 3.3. Reserved Authority ........................................................................................ 10 3.3.1. Uniform Codes ....................................................................................... 10 3.3.2. State and Federal Laws and Regulations ............................................ 10 3.3.3. Regulation for Health and Safety ......................................................... 11 3.4. Vested Right ................................................................................................... 11 3.4.1. No Conflicting Enactments ................................................................... 11 3.4.2. Consistent Enactments ..................................... ..................................... 11 3.4.3. Initiative Measures ................................................................................. 12 3.4.4. Consistency Between This Agreement and Current Laws ................. 12 3.5. Future Amendments to Development Plan .................................................. 12 3.5.1. Owner's Written Consent ..................................................................... 12 3.5.2. Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment ............................ 12 3.5.3. Effect of Amendment ............................................................................. 12 Obligations of the Parties ...................................................................................... 13 4.1. Benefits to CITY ............................................................................................ 13 4.1.1. Growth Management ............................................................................. 13 4.1.2. Traffic and Circulation .......................................................................... 13 4.1.3. Schools ..................................................................................................... 13 4.1.4. Parks and Recreation ............................................................................ 13 4.1.5. No Habitat Impact ................................................................................ 13 4.2. Development Fees ........................................................................................... 13 4.2.1. Fee Rates ................................................................................................. 13 The presently adopted Development Impact Fees, as defined in Section 1.7 herein, and currently charged by the CITY shall be imposed upon Development within the jurisdiction of this Agreement at the rate in effect as of the Effective Date ............ 13 4.2.3 Fees for Public Art, Open Space and Habitat Preservation .............. 14 Regardless of whether the CITY enacts, adopts, or imposes on or after the Effective Date any fees of any kind or description with respect to art in public places or to preservation of open space, OWNER agrees to pay the CITY the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) per individual residential dwelling unit, which funds the CITY shall use, in its discretion, in connection with art in public places,. .............. 14 4.2.4 TUMF Fees. The CITY and OWNER acknowledge that a Traffic ....... 14 Uniform Mitigation Fee (the "TUMF") program is currently being considered and that no such TUMF has been adopted by the County of Riverside or by the CITY. To the extent a TUMF is adopted by the CITYi the CITY and OWNER agree that OWNER's obligations under TUMF shall be deemed satisfied through: (i) OWNER's or the Property's participation in and payment of prior assessments assessed under Assessment District 159; (ii) any future assessments or assessment liens paid by OWNER or the Property assessed under Assessment District 159; (iii) all Off-site Improvements to be constructed or financed by OWNER under this Agreement; (iv) OWNER's participation in the CFD provided for in Section 4.6 of this Agreement or in any other financing mechanism mutually agreed upon by the CITY and OWNER; (v) OWNER's agreement to dedicate to the CITY and/or a 184051/6 2000.001/DRAFT 02601 40 district such rights of way as may be required for Off-site Improvements including, but not limited to, drainage and roadway facilities, including, Pala Road, Deer Hollow Road, Wolf Valley Road, and Loma Linda Road; and (vi) OWNER's agreement to waive any right of or claim for reimbursement from the TUMF program with respect to the payment of such assessments, the construction of such improvements, and/or the dedication of such rights of way .................................... 14 4.2.5 Credit for Development Impact Fees ................................................... 15 4.3. Dedications and Exactions ............................................................................ 16 4.4. Future Development Approvals will be ........................................................... 16 reviewed in a manner consistent with the general review procedures of the CITY accorded the particular type of Future Development Approval being sought and necessary conditions imposed in a manner consistent with this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the health, safety and general welfare based mitigation measures arising from the future Development Approvals shall not be limited by this Agreement ............................................................................................ 16 4.4. Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development Agreement ................................................................................................................... 16 4.4.1. Intent of the Parties ............................................................................... 16 4.4.2. Fire Station and Civic Use Sites ............................................................ 17 4.4.3. Parks ........................................................................................................ 18 4.4.4. Quimby Credits. Upon improvement, actual conveyance to and acceptance by CITY of the parkland referenced above the CITY hereby agrees to credit OWNER's obligations of 28.23 acres under CITY's subdivision/Quimby parkland acreage requirements as satisfied and CITY shall not exact any further contribution from OWNER ...................................................................................... 20 4.4.5 Liens, Encumbrances and Environmental Conditions ....................... 20 4.5. Additional Public Improvements/Performance Standard ......................... 20 4.5.1. Temporary Fire Station. In the event OWNER desires to obtain building permits for any improvements outside of Planning Area I through 6 of the Specific Plan prior to the completion of the permanent fire station, then OWNER shall, prior to the issuance of the building permits in Planning Areas 7 through 24 of the Specific Plan, at its own sole cost and expense complete the following: ................ 20 (i) Obtain the Fire Chief's approval of(a) the site selected for a ......................... 21 tempora0' station and (b) the scope ofimprovcments, on and offsite for the temporary station; .................................................................................................... 21 4.6. Offsite Improvement Funding .......... .' ....................................................... 22 4.7. Entitlements .................................................................................................... 22 4.7.1 Tentative Tract Map .............................................................................. 22 4.7.2 Lot Line Adjustments ............................................................................ 22 4.8 Use Restrictions. OWNER agrees to place such restrictions, prohibitions, etc. as are reasonably necessary on the title to the real property located in Planning Areas 12 and 13 such that an anchor tenant or End User in one such Planning Area cannot restrict, prohibit, or otherwise limit the land use by a tenant or End User in the other such Planning Area ...................................................................................................... 22 18405}/6 2000.001/DRAFT 02601 5. Further Assurances to OWNER Regarding Exercise of Reserved Authority. 23 5.1. Adoption of General Plan and Granting of Other Proiect Approvals ...... 23 5.2. Assurances to OWNER ................................................................................. 23 5.3. Judicial Review. .............................................................................................. 23 6. Indemnification ...................................................................................................... 23 7. Relationship of Parties ........................................................................................... 24 8. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ......................................................... 24 9. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement ................................................ 24 9.1. Periodic Review .............................................................................................. 24 9.2. Good Faith Compliance ................................................................................. 24 9.3. Failure to Conduct Annual Review .............................................................. 25 9.4. Initiation of Review by City Council ............................................................ 25 9.5. Administration of Agreement ....................................................................... 25 9.6. Availability of Documents ............................................................................. 25 10. Events of Default: Remedies and Termination .............................................. 25 10.1. Defaults by Owner ..................................................................................... 25 10.2. Defaults bv CITY ....................................................................................... 26 10.3. Specific Performance Remedy .................................................................. 26 10.4. Institution of Legal Action ........................................................................ 27 10.5. Estoppel Certificates .................................................................................. 27 11. Waivers and Delays ............................................................................................ 27 11.1. No Waiver ................................................................................................... 27 11.2. Third Parties ............................................................................................... 28 11.3. Force Maieure ............................................................................................ 28 11.4. Extensions ................................................................................................... 28 11.4.1. Litigation ................................................................................................. 28 11.4.2. Government Agencies ............................................................................ 28 11.5. Notice of Delay ............................................................................................ 28 12. Notices ................................................................................................................. 28 13. Attorneys' Fees ................................................................................................... 29 14. Recording ............................................................................................................ 29 15. Effect of Agreement on Title ............................................................................. 30 15.1. Effect on Title ............................................................................................. 30 15.2. Encumbrances and Lenders' Rights ........................................................ 30 16. Severabilit~, of Terms ......................................................................................... 31 17. Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing ~tatute ............................................ 31 18. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms ............................................ 31 18.1. Interpretation and Governing Law .......................................................... 31 18.2. Section Headings ........................................................................................ 31 18.3. Gender. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive .................................................. 31 18.4. No Joint aud Several Liability .................................................................. 31 18.5. Time of Essence .......................................................................................... 31 18.6. Recitals ........................................................................................................ 32 184051/6 2000.001/DRAFT02601 42 18.7. Entire Agreement ....................................................................................... 32 19. Extension of Maps .............................................................................................. 32 20. Not for Benefit of Third Parties ........................................................................ 32 184051/6 2000.001/DRAFT 02601 43 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JANUARY 23, 2001 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:58 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLLCALL PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of January 9, 2001. 2 Lease of Property at 27500 Jefferson Avenue (Richardson's) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Authorize the Chairman to execute the lease agreement with Richardson's RV Center for property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue. Chairman Roberts advised that the recommendation is being amended to read as follows: authorize the Chairman to execute the lease agreement for 30 days with Richardson's RV Center for property located at 27500 Jefferson Avenue. MOTION: Agency Member Comemhero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2 (Item No. 2 as amended by Chairman Roberts). The motion was seconded by Agency Member Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comments. R:\Minutes.rda\012301 1 ADJOURNMENT At 7:59 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 13, 2001, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:~,linutes.rda\012301 2 ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY OF FINANCE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Shawn Nelson, General Manager February 13, 2000 Approval of 2000-01 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance~~''-' Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance;Director ~- RECOMMENDATION: entitled: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. CSD 2001- RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS DISCUSSION: Each year a mid-year review is conducted of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operating budgets. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the TCSD maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Finance Department staff has performed an analysis of revenues. Additionally, TCSD staff has reviewed the operating budgets and has identified any material adjustments required. The mid-year budget review includes the TCSD City-wide Parks and Recreation Fund, five Service Level Funds, and the Debt Service Fund. Activity in each of the funds is presented in accordance with the following schedules: Summary of Revenues. Exoenditures. and Fund Balances: Presents a summary of prior year and FY 2000-01 year-to-date actual activity, as well as FY 2000-01 current and proposed budget amounts. Also included is a schedule of beginning and estimated ending fund balances based upon the proposed budget activity. Revenue Detail: Presents detail of prior year and FY 2000-01 year-to-date revenues, as well as the FY 2000-01 current and revised projected revenues. The projected total 'I'CSD revenues reflect a $59,800 increase over the original budget estimate, This increase is comprised of several minor revenue adjustments, as detailed on the attached schedules, A total increase in TCSD expenditures of $44,300 is proposed. Following is a summary of all proposed expenditure adjustments: Park n R r i n: $25,000 is requested for streambed alterations and vegetation removal in the creek at Margarita Community Park. ervi L v I 'D": $19,300 is requested as follows: 1) $14,300 for a beverage container recycling program (fully funded by a State grant), and 2) $5,000 for a recycling program (fully funded by a contribution from the City's refuse hauler CR&R). AUTHORIZED POSITIONS No changes are proposed to the Schedule of Authorized Positions. ~: The requested expenditure adjustments are fully offset by projected revenue increases. The proposed mid-year adjustments will result in a $15,500 net increase in the TCSD fund balance, to a total projected fund balance of $1,897,458 at June 30, 2001. Attachments: Resolution CSD 2001- 2000-01 Temecula Community Services District Mid-Year Budget RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS WHEREAS, each year a mid-year review is conducted of all Temecula Community Services (TCSD) operating budgets. WHEREAS, the purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. WHEREAS, the mid-year review has been completed and the recommended adjustments are reflected in the attached schedules. The Board of Directors does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the Fiscal Year 2000-01 TCSD operating budgets are amended in accordance with the attached schedules. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13~ day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, President Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/Board Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, Board Secretary for the Temecula Community Services District, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 2001- was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of February, 2001, by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/Board Secretary 2000-01 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MID-YEAR BUDGET TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 2000-01 MID-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET 00-01 00-01 00-01 Proposed % 99-00 YTD Current Proposed Increase Increase Actual (~ 12/31/00 Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues* 7~808,701 1,263,046 8,578,660 8,638,460 Total Expenditures by Fund: Citywide Operations* 3,896,863 1,990,888 4,770,971 4,795,971 Service Level B 324,668 172,201 367,850 367,850 Service Level C 613,518 286,943 705,150 705,150 Service Level D 2,344,187 1,293,907 2,637,860 2,657,160 Service Level R 11,493 2,100 17,160 17,160 Debt Service 499,444 359,448 498,000 498,000 Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Operating Transfers Out*: CIP Fund Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Operating Transfers Out Fund Balances, Beg. of Year Fund Balances, End of Year 7,690,173 4~ 105,487 8,996,991 9,041,291 59,800 0.7% 25,000 0.5% 19,300 0.7% 44,300 0.5% 118,528 (2,842,441) (418,331) (402,831) 15,500 18,735 99,793 2~305,496 2~405,289 105,000 105,000 (2,842~441) (523,331) (507,831) 2,405,289 2,405~289 1,881,958 1,897~458 15,500 * Operating transfers between various TCSD Funds are not reflected. Comparative information reflects amounts previously reported in separate Service Level A Fund '[emecula Community Services District Summary of Fund Balances 2000-01 Proposed Mid-Year Budget Fgnd 190 City Wide Operations Senior Center CRC Recreation Community Center Museum Acquatics Spo[ts Operating Transfers Out Fund Balances July 1, 2000 2000-01 Estimated Revenues 4,424,000 14,650 94,750 157,600 38,700 10,600 106,400 114,000 2000~1 Proposed Expenditures (3,237,801) (146,800) (345,670) (327,510) (143,780) (177,800) (249,380) (167,230) (568,000) Estimated Fund Balances June 30, 2001 Fund 190 Total 1,181,435 4,960,700 (5,363,971 ) 778,164 Service Level "B" 98,075 378,000 (367,850) 108,225 Service Level "C" 400,987 615,800 (705,150) 311,637 Service Level "D" 195,510 2,636,260 (2,657,160) 174,610 Service Level "R" 17,614 12,100 (17,160) 12,554 Debt Service 511,668 498,600 (498,000) 512,268 Total 2,405,289 9,101,460 (9,609,291) 1,897,458 mcdermt~budget~2001~midyea~TCSD Fund Balances 02/01/2001 TCSD REVENUE DETAIL FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 190TCSD FUND ACTUALS YTD ~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE DEPT -180 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 4004 .Special Tax 2,374,603 2,486,100 2,486,100 4058 -Miscellaneous 25 4060 -Miscellaneous Non Taxable 1,284 592 4065 .Investment Interest 35,566 23,t01 25,000 92.4% 40,000 15,000 4073 .TCSD Admin Fee Credit~'Rest" 1,366,000 864,50¢ 1,729,00~ 50.0°/ 1,729,000 4076 -Reimbursements 19,326 1,04£ 30,10¢ 3.5% 30,100 4077 .Lease Income 12,060 5,15¢ 12,00¢ 42.9% 12,000 4076 -Reimbursements (CIP) 60,752 36,05¢ 72,10¢ 50.0% 72,100 4090 -Operating Transfers In 44,191 44,200 44,200 4107 .Parcel Maps 5,550 1,42C 4284 .Plan Check 6,210 1,08C 40,00¢ 2.7% 40,000 4290 .Inspection Fees 10,125 26,824 10,00C 268.2% 10,000 4390 .Street Lighting Fees 13,869 7,072 4,70(~ 150.5% 4,700 TOTAL DEPT 180 3~905,370 1,011,020 4,409,000 22.9% 4,468,200 59,200 1.3°/~ DEPT -181 SR. CENTER 4980 -Classes/Activities 196 3,000 6.5% 3,000 4983 -Transportation 160 850 18.8% 850 4986 -Excursions 40 800 5.0% 800 4990 -Indoor Rentals 2,166 10,000 21.7% 10,000 TOTAL DEPT 181 2,562 14r650 17.5% 14,650 DEPT -182 CRC 4980 -Classes/Activities 11,259 6,000 187.7% 16,000 10,000 166.7% 4984 -Day Camp 8,299 48,750 17.0% 48,75¢ 4990 -Indoor Rentals 18,542 24,000 77.3% 30,00¢ 6,000 25.0% TOTAL DEPT 182 38,100 78,750 48.4% 94,75¢ 16,000 20.3% 3EPT -183 RECREATION 4070 -Cash Over & Short -100 ¢975 -Aquatics 90,275 ~.980 -Classes/Activities 19,707 -576 ~982 -Contracted Classes 92,638 42,900 96,000 44.7% 96,00¢ ~.984 -Day Camp 71,937 123 ~.986 -Excursions 2,757 3,053 4,000 76.3% 4,00C ~.988 -Field Rentals/Lights 63,898 90 ~.989 -Picnic Shelter Rentals -147 3,600 -4.1% 3,60C ~.990 -Indoor Rentals 62,898 ~.992 -Special Events 12,819 5,611 10,000 56.1°,~ 10,000 ~.993 -Special Event Donations -200 4,000 ~5.0°~ 4,000 ~994 -Sports 89,273 900 t995 -Sponsorships ~998 -Skate Park 39,404 12,238 40,000 30.6°,~ 40,000 TOTAL DEPT 183 545,506 63,992 157~600 40.6°.4 157,600 3EPT -164 TCC 4980 -Classes/Activities 381 4,000 9.5°.4 4,000 4984 -Day Camp 18,700 18,700 4990 -Indoor Rentals 7,822 13,000 60.2'.4 16,000 3,000 23.1% TOTAL DEPT 184 8,203 35,700 23.0% 381700 31000 8.4% 01 midyear-REV 02/05/2001 TCSD REVENUE DETAIL FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 190 TCSD FUND ACTUALS YTD (~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED ESl' IN EST CHANGE DEPT -185 MUSEUM 4980 .Classes/Activities 1,00C 1,000 4990 .indoor Rentals 34C 4991 -Museum Admissions 7,001 3,703 9,60C 38.6% 9,600 4997 .Museum Conceasions 5,50C (5,500) -100.0% ]'OTAL DEPT 185 7,001 4,043 16,10(; 25.1% 10,600 (5,500) -34.2% DEPT .186AQUATICS 4970 .Swim Lessons 32,097 69,00£ 46.5% 69,000 4971 -Lap Swim 2,225 4,10C 54.3% 4,100 4972 -Public Swim 11,615 22,00(; 52.8% 22,000 4973 .Family Night Swim 96 1,15(; 8,3% 1,150 4974 .Pool Rentals 4,732 6,70C 70.6% 6,700 4976 -Non-resident Swim 35(; 3,45C 10.1% 3,450 TOTAL D E PT 186 51 ~115 106,40C 48.0% 106~400 DEPT .187 SPORTS 4960 -Adult Softball 30,850 55,50C 55.6% 55,500 4961 .Adult Basketball 3,555 7,00(; 50.8% 7,000 4962 .Adult Rollerhockey 3,00C 3,000 4963 .Tournaments 2,000 6,00(; 33.3% 6,000 4964 -Adult Leagues (non-resident) 1,320 50(3 264.0% 500 4965 .Youth Leagues (non-resident) 6,285 4,00(3 157,1% 4,000 4988 -Field Rentals/Lights 20,551 38,00(3 54.1% 38,000 TOTAL DEPT 187 64~561 114,00(3 56.6% 114,000 TOTAL TCSD 4~457~877 1,243,596 4~932~20(3 25.2% 5~004,900 72,70C 1.5',~ TCSD REVENUE DETAil FY2000.01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT I FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY O0-01 YTD % FY 00.01 CHANGE % NO 192 SERVICE LEVEL"B" FUND ACTUALS YTD (~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED ES'[ IN EST CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 323,992 348,400 348,400 4065 -Investment Interest 1,441 872 2,000 2,000 4390 -Street Lighting Fees 31,78(2 9,650 15,600 61.9% 15,600 4395 -Property Owner Election Costs 709 400 12,000 3.3% 12,000 TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL "B" FUND 357,922 10~922 376~000 2.9% 378~000 21000 0.5% ACCT Fy 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 193 SERVICE LEVEL"C" FUND ACTUALS YTD ~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4005 ~Assessments 559,954 559,80(: 559,800 4065 -Investment Interest 17,739 9,84~: 14,00(: 70.3'~ 19,000 5,000 35.7°,~ 4370 -Landscape Plan Check 9,720 4,50(: 10,00(: 45.0% 10,000 4371 -Landscape Inspection 19,575 5,58d 15,00(: 37.2% 15,000 4395 .Property Owner Election Costs 709 40(: 12,00(: 3.3% 12,000 I'OTAL SERVICE LEVEL-C,, FUND 607,697 20~322 610~80¢ 3.3% 615~800 5~000 I 0.8°~ ACCT FY 99.00 FY 00-01 FY 00.01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 194 SERVICE LEVEL"D" FUND ACTUALS YTD ~12/31/00 ORIG EST Of BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 2,316,483 2,597,96(3 2,597,960 4025 .Grants 14,279 14,300 14,300 4065 -Investment Interest 20,785 8,821 14,00C 63.0% 19,000 5,000 35.7% new -Recycling Program 5,000 5,000 TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL "D" FUND 2r337,268 23110(3 2,611 i96(3 0.9% 2,636r260 24,300 0.9% ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 Fy 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 195 SERVICE LEVEL"R" FUND ACtUALS YTD ~12/31/00 ORIG EST Of BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4005 -Assessments 11,657 11,600 11,600 4065 -Investment Interest 936 534 500 106.8% 500 TOTAL SERVICE LEVEL 'R" FUND 12~593 534 121100 4.4% 12~100 ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 390 DEBT SERVICE FUND ACTUALS YTD (~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF 0DGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE ~1065 -Investment Interest 35,344 8,763 35,600 24.6% 35,600 4090 -Operating Transfer In 446,815 342,248 463,000 73.9% 463,000 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 482~159 351 ~011 498~600 70.4% 498,600] ITEM 3' APPROVAL,~, CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR ClTY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services February 13, 2001 Authorization to Release a Formal Bid for the Rancho California Sports Park Culvert Modification Project PREPARED BY: ~'"~hyllis L. Ruse. Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Make a finding that the Rancho California Sports Park Culvert Modification Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the CEQA guidelines. 2. Approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize the release of a formal public bid for the Rancho California Sports Park Culvert Modification Project. DISCUSSION: The Community Services Department is responsible for the maintenance of the slopes and channel bed that transverses the back of the Rancho California Sports Park. An existing box culvert brings water from the east. under Margarita Road into the creek in the park. A slope area descends from the street grade to the culvert. The design of the existing culvert is such that the slope erodes and sloughs around the culvert, washing into the creek and creating a potentially unsafe condition. Public Works and TCSD staff have worked together to redesign the culvert. The plans and specifications are on file in the Public Works Department. The redesign provides for the addition of wing walls to the existing box culvert and backfill and re-vegetation of the adjacent slope. It is envisioned that the redesign will repair the existing erosion and prevent a recurrence of the condition. It is estimated that the project will take 45 working days to complete once work is commenced. The project has undergone an Environmental Review and staff is recommending that the Board make a finding that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Upon the Board's finding, staff will file the appropriate Notice of Exemption with the Clerk of the Board. FISCAL IMPACT: The Engineer's cost estimate for this project is $48,450. The project is funded with Development impact Fees and is included in the Capital Improvement Program in fund 210-190-178-5804. R:\RUSEP~GENDAS\bid solicitation-rcsp culvert redesign.doc ITEM 4 APPROVA~-~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR Of FINAN CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT General Manager/Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services February 13, 2001 Tract Map No. 29286 - Service Level B, Proposed Residential Street Lighting and Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance Rates and Charges PREPARED BY: Barbara Smith, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON APRIL 5, 2001 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29286 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. Approve the Election Notice, Ballot, and Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of the Ballots. Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting services, perimeter and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services to numerous residential subdivisions within the City of Temecula through Service Levels B, C and D. Pursuant to the request of the property owner, staff has initiated proceedings to assume the responsibility for long-term residential street lighting services, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection services within Tract Map No. 29286 beginning Fiscal Year R: ~mithb\ Elections~9286 Election~Staff-Notice of Elecdon.dc~ 02/08/2001 2001-2002. On December 12, 2000 and in accordance with Proposition 218, the Board of Directors adopted the resolution of intention to file the levy report on lots 1-38 within Tract Map No. 29286. The Notice of Public Hearing was subsequently mailed to the property owner identifying the proposed TCSD Rates and Charges for each affected parcel as follows: Service Level B $25.68 per residential parcel Service Level C $116.00 per residential parcel Service Level D $172.56 per occupied residential parcel At tonight's Public Hearing, the Board of Directors must hear and consider all objections or protests to the levy report for Tract Map No. 29286 and the proposed rates and charges. If the property owner presents a written protest, the Board must reject the proposed fee and abandon any further proceedings. In this instance, a homeowner's association would be required to assume the street lighting responsibilities. However, if the property owner does not submit a written protest against the proposed rates and charges, the Board of Directors may then adopt the proposed fee subject to an election requiring a majority approval of the affected property owners. In this instance, the Board of Directors can order and call an election for April 5, 2001, and authorize staff to proceed with mailing a notice and ballot to the property owner of Tract Map No. 29286, a copy of which is attached for your review. Pursuant to the ballot process, staff is also recommending the approval of the attached Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots. The ballot procedure explains the process for completion, return and tabulation of the ballot and will be included as part of the mailed ballot documents. The ballot can only be completed by the property owner of each parcel. In order to be counted, the ballot must be completed in compliance with these procedures and returned to the City Clerk/District Secretary prior to 3:30 p.m. on April 5, 2001. The City Clerk/District Secretary will open the ballot on April 5, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room in City Hall. The results of the election shall be announced by the City Clerk/District Secretary at that time, and presented to the Community Services District for formal certification at it's meeting on April 10, 2001. FISCAL IMPACT: In the event that the Board of Directors calls for an election, staff will prepare the notices, ballot and election procedures in-house. if approved, upon build-out of the development, the proposed rates and charges of $25.68 and $116.00 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $975.84 and $4,408.00 respectively, for the Service Level B and Service Level C maintenance programs. The proposed Service Level D charge of $172.56 per parcel will generate an annual levy of $6,557.28. Pursuant of Proposition 218, these amounts may be increased by the TCSD only after conducting a public hearing, however, mailed ballot proceedings ara not required to increase Service Level D rates and charges. Actual costs for providing long-term residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance services within Tract Map No. 29286 will be absorbed into Service Level B and Service Level C upon installation of said improvements. ATFACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Resolution Calling and Noticing the Election. Notice and Ballot Form· Procedures for Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots. Vicinity Map · R: Xsmithb\ Electiorts~29286 Election~Staff-Notice of Election.doc 02/08/2001 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2001 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON APRIL 5, 2001 REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 29286 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID, Section 6 of the California Constitution, there is hereby called and ordered to be held on April 5, 2001, an election for the purpose of submitting to the property owners of Tract Map No. 29286 in the City of Temecula proposed Service Level B and Service Level C Rates and Charges beginning Fiscal Year 2001- 2002 Section 2. The notice and ballot to be submitted to the property owners shall be substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The Board of Directors hereby approves the Procedures for the Completion, Return and Tabulation of Ballots ("Ballot Procedures") presented to the Board at this meeting and directs such procedures be placed on file in the office of the Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District and open to public inspection. Section 3. All ballots must be received by the Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District no later than 3:30 p.m. on April 5, 2001. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided in the Ballot Procedures. Section 4. The Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the election. The officers and staff of the Temecula Community Services District are hereby authorized and directed to take such further action as may be necessary or appropriate in preparing for and conducting the election. R:~smithb\Elections~29286 Election~Reso-Election.doc 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District this 13th day of February, 2001. Jeffrey E. Stone, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, Susan W. Jones, CMS, District Secretary, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 2000-__ was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of February, 2001, by the following vote of the Board of Directors. AYES: DIRECTORS: NOES: DIRECTORS: ABSENT: DIRECTORS: ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] R:~smithb\Elections~29286 Election\Reso-Election.doc 2 02/08/2001 NOTICE OF ELECTION PROPOSED SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT NO. 29286 BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002. Pursuant to the request of the property owners of 38 future residential lots within Tract Map No. 29286, the Temecula Community Services District has initiated proceedings to assume maintenance of residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping and slope areas within Tract No. 29286 beginning with the Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Pursuant to this request, and pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, which contains a description of each parcel of property to be charged for this maintenance and the proposed amount of the maintenance charge for each parcel for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 The proposed Service Level B rate and charge against each of the above mentioned parcels within Tract Map No. 29286 beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is $25.68. The proposed levy rate of $25.68 per parcel provides revenue for residential street lighting services within this subdivision. The proposed Service Level C rate and charge against each of the parcels beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is $116.00. The proposed levy rate of $116.00 per parcel provides revenue for the maintenance of perimeter landscaping and slope areas within this subdivision. This amount was calculated by dividing the total estimated maintenance cost upon build-out of the development $4,408.00 by the total number of parcels within the subdivision. On February 13, 2001 the Board of Directors conducted a public hearing on the Report and the proposed Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges. At the public hearing, the Board of Directors heard and considered all objections or protests to the Report and to the proposed rates and charges. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board determined that written protests against the proposed fees were presented by less than a majority of owners of the parcels on which the proposed fees were to be imposed, and levied the rates and charges subject to approval by the property owners subject to the proposed rates and charges. The Board of Directors encourages you to return the enclosed ballot indicating whether you support or oppose the proposed Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges. Ballots may be mailed to the City Clerk/District Secretary at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589- 9033, or otherwise delivered to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590 no later than 3:30 p.m. on April 5, 2001. The proposed Service Level B and Service Level C rates and charges will be abandoned if the ballot is not returned in favor of the proposed rates and charges. In the event the proposed charges are abandoned, the homeowners association will assume responsibility for residential street lighting and perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance services within the subdivision. Enclosed is your ballot and the District's Procedures for the completion, return and tabulation of Ballots. Please consult these Procedures for details regarding the ballot process. You may also contact the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office at (909) 694-6444; by mail, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033; or in person, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590, for further information regarding this matter. R:~smithb\Elections~9286 Election\Ballot Notice and Procedures.doc 01/29/2001 Exhibit A OFFICIAL BALLOT TRACT NO. 29286 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SERVICE LEVEL B RATES AND CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING SERVICES PROPERTY: Being a subdivision ora portion of Lot 168, together with portions of vacated Date Street and John Jay Avenue adjoining said Lot, all as shown on a Map o£the Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, records of San Diego County, CA OWNER: Mr. Robert Santos, President-Land YES, I approve of the proposed annual levy of $25.68 for Service Level B and $116.00 for Service Level C on the parcels identified on this ballot. of the proposed annual levy of $25.68 for Service Level B and $116.00 for Division Lennar Communities 24800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, CA 92691 NO, I do not approve Service Level C on the parcels identified on this ballot. I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury that I am the recorded owner, or the authorized representative of the recorded owner, of the parcels identified above. Signature Print Name Date CHECK ONLY ONE BOX. BALLOTS MUST BE COMPLETED IN INK AND RETURNED TO THE CITY CLERK/DISTRICT SECRETARY AT THE CITY OF TEMECULA, P.O. BOX 9033/43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, 92589-9033 PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. ON APRIL 5, 2001. R:~smithb\Elections~29286 Election~Ballot Form.doc 01/29/2001 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PROCEDURES FOR THE COMPLETION, RETURN, AND TABULATION OF BALLOTS I. Completion of Ballots Who may complete a ballot A ballot may be completed by the owner of the parcel to be charged. As used in these Procedures, the term "owner" includes the owner's authorized representative. If the owner of the parcel is a partnership, joint tenancy, or tenancy in common, a ballot may be completed by any of the general partners, joint tenants, or tenants in common. Only one ballot may be completed for each parcel. Duplicate ballots If a ballot is lost, destroyed or never received, the City Clerk/District Secretary will provide a duplicate ballot to the owner upon receipt of a request in writing to the City Clerk, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033, or otherwise delivered to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The duplicate ballot will be marked to show the date on which the ballot was provided and to identify it as a duplicate ballot. Marking and signing the ballot To complete a ballot, the owner of the parcel must (1) mark the appropriate box supporting or opposing the proposed rate and charge, and (2) sign, under penalty of perjury, the statement on the ballot that the person completing the ballot is the owner of the parcel or the owner's authorized representative. Only one box may be marked on each ballot. Ballots must be completed in ink. Only ballots provided by the District will be accepted The District will only accept ballots mailed or otherwise provided to owners by the District. Photocopies, faxes, and other forms of the ballot will not he accepted. II. Return of Ballots Who may return ballots A ballot may be returned by the owner of the parcel or by anyone authorized by the owner to return the ballot. RSsmithb\Elections~9286 Election\Ballot Notice and Procedures.doc 01/29/2001 Where to return ballots Ballots may be mailed to the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Califomia, 92589-9033, (the District has provided a return postage-paid envelope). Ballots may also be delivered in person to the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. Ballots may not be returned by fax. When to return ballots All returned ballots must be received by the City Clerk/District Secretary's Office prior to 3:30 p.m. on April 5, 2001. The City Clerk/District Secretary will stamp on the ballot the date of its receipt. Withdrawal of ballots After returning a ballot to the District, the person who signed the ballot may withdraw the ballot by submitting a written request in person to the City Clerk/District Secretary at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. Such request must be received by the City Clerk/District Secretary prior to 3:30 p.m. on April 4, 2001. If any ballot has been withdrawn, the person withdrawing the ballot may request a duplicate ballot. The City Clerk/District Secretary will retain all withdrawn ballots and will indicate on the face of such ballots that they have been withdrawn. III. Tabulation of Ballots Which ballots will be counted Only ballots which are completed and returned in compliance with these procedures will be counted. Ballots received by the City Clerk/Disthct Secretary after 3:30 p.m. on April 5, 2000 will not be counted. Ballots which are not signed by the owner will not be counted. Ballots with no boxes marked, or with more than one box marked, will not be counted. Ballots withdrawn in accordance with these procedures will not be counted. The City Clerk/District Secretary will keep a record of each duplicate ballot provided to an owner and will verify, prior to counting any duplicate ballot, that only one ballot has been returned for the parcel. If a non-duplicate ballot has been returned, the District will count the non-duplicate ballot and disregard all duplicate ballots. If only duplicate ballots have been returned, the District will count the earliest provided duplicate ballot and disregard the later provided duplicate ballots. How ballots will be tabulated Ballots may be counted by hand, by computer or by any other tabulating device. R:~mithb\Elections~29286 Election\Ballot Notice and Procedures,doc 01/29/2001 Who will tabulate ballots Ballots will be tabulated by the City Clerk/District Secretary. When and where will the ballots be tabulated Ballots will be opened and tabulated on Thursday, April 5, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590. This process is open to the general public. Results of tabulation The results of the tabulation will be announced following the completion of the tabulation and entered in the minutes of the next Board of Directors meeting April 10, 2001. IV. Resolution of Disputes In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is the owner of the parcel to which the ballot applies, the District will make such determination from the last equalized assessment roll and any evidence of ownership submitted to the City Clerk/District Secretary. The District will be under no duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to ownership of property and the District's determination of ownership will be final and conclusive. In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is an authorized representative of the owner of the parcel, the District may rely on the statement on the ballot, signed under penalty of perjury, that the person completing the ballot is the owner's authorized representative and any evidence submitted to the City Clerk/District Secretary. The District will be under no duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to whether the signer of the ballot is an authorized representative of the owner and the District's determination will be final and conclusive. V. General Information For further information, contact the City Clerk/District Secretary at (909) 694-6444: by mail, at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, California, 92589-9033; or in person, at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. R:~smithb\Elections~9286 Election\Ballot Notice and Procedures.doc 01/29/2001 T.C.S.D. MAINTAINED SLOPE AND LANDSCAPE AREAS FOR TRACT NO. 29286 r"o N' U LTl N I~ Vicinity Map ITEM 5 APPROVAL ./~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~ CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager February 13, 2001 Proposed Annexation of the Vail Ranch Area and the Related Imposition of Taxes, Rates and Charges (Planning Application No. PA00-0021) PREPARED BY: John De Gange, GIS Administrator RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the annexation of the Vail Ranch area. At the conclusion of the public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council carry out one or the other of the following actions, depending on whether or not a significant number of written protests are received: 1. ADOPT a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-1 INCLUDING THE ANNEXATION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE DETACHMENT OF THOSE AREAS FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143, AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA '152 SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL OF APPLICABLE TAXES, ASSESSMENTS AND CHARGES Direct staff to determine the value of written protests received from the property owners and/or registered voters in the annexation area and report its findings at a subsequent City Council meeting within 30 days of this hearing. BACKGROUND: This item comes before the City Council as the next step in the annexation process following the Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) approval of the Vail Ranch annexation at its November 16, 2000 meeting. The process of annexing the Vail Ranch area began in December of 1999 when the City Council directed staff to proceed with the annexation of the Vail Ranch area separate from the Redhawk R:\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~21PA00.Conducting Authority.doc I area at the request of a number of residents from the Vail Ranch area. These residents request immediately followed the failure of the annexation of the combined Redhawk/Vail Ranch areas due to the unsuccessful passage of a special tax and rates and charges by the residents with Redhawk at the November 2, 1999 election. On March 21,2000 the Council carried out the first step with the adoption of a Resolution initiating the Commencement of Proceedings (Resolution 2000-20). Following the actions taken at the March 21s~ hearing for Commencement of Proceedings at the City Council meeting, the project went before the LAFCO at a hearing held on August 24, 2000. At this meeting the item was continued due to issues raised by the County and the property owner(s) of the historic Vail Ranch properties regarding the financial mechanisms for the preservation of the historic buildings and with respect to concerns relating to the Native American burial site within the annexation boundary. As a result of these issues the item was subsequently continued at the September 28th and October 26th LAFCO meetings. At the November 16th meeting these issues were resolved with the revision of annexation boundary and agreements on the sharing of sales tax and LAFCO went forward with the project and approved the annexation (LAFCO Resolution No. 35-00). Final approval of the annexation, once again has been conditioned on voter approval of the imposition of taxes, rates and charges in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218. The City is relying on the results of the November 2, 1999 election in which the registered voters in Vail Ranch approved the imposition of a special tax and rates and charges for refuse collection and slope, park, median and lighting maintenance with an over 90% vote in favor. At this time, the City Council, acting as the Conducting Authority, is required to determine the value of any written protests from residents or property owners in the annexation area. Any landowner or registered voter may file a written protest against the annexation at any time prior to the conclusion of the public hearing. The City Council has as many as 30 days in which to determine the value of the protests. Once the value of the protests have been determined, the City Council would take the appropriate action. If 50% or more of the registered voters protest the annexation, the City Council would act to terminate the annexation. If less than 50% and more than 25% of the voters or property owners protest the annexation the City would be required to hold election to determine if the registered voters in the area desire to be annexed. If less than 25% of the registered voters or property owners file a protest, the City would adopt a the attached resolution ordering the annexation of the territory. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact associated with the annexation of the Vail Ranch area is fully addressed in the fiscal impact analysis conducted by the City which was submitted with the City's application to LAFCO. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Negative Declaration which addresses the impacts associated with this project was adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1998 for the proposed annexation of the combined annexation of the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas. Itwas determined that the environmental review conducted within this document for the combined annexation area adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed annexation of the Vail Ranch area separately. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS: This action is the next step in the process of the annexation of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area. If the annexation is successful it will result in the transfer approximately 720 acres of unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated limits of the City of Temecula. This annexation is entirely contained within the City's Sphere of influence. It will not create any islands of unincorporated territory and it has been determined to be a logical extension of the existing City limits. R:\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~21PA00.Conducting Authority.doc 2 The actions outlined in this report are required as part of the City's responsibility as the Conducting Authority. The City shall evaluate any written protests submitted prior to or at this hearing and carry out the appropriate action that is required pursuant to Section 57075 of the Government Code. R:\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~21PA00.Conducting Authority.doc 3 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 3. City Council Resolution No. 2001- - Page 5 Exhibit "A" - Map and Legal Description - Page 6 Fiscal Impact Analysis - Page 7 Plan for Municipal Service - Page 8 City Council Staff Report from March 21, 2000 - Page 9 R:\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~21PA00.Conductin9 Authority.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F~21PA00.Conducting Authority,doc 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-1 INCLUDING THE ANNEXATION OF THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE DETACHMENT OF THOSE AREAS FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, COUNTY SERVICE AREA 143, AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA 152 SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL OF APPLICABLE TAXES, ASSESSMENTS AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Riverside (LAFCO) adopted its Resolution No. 35-00 on November 16, 2000, making determinations and approving the proposed reorganization designated as LAFCO No. 2000-10-1, including concurrent annexations to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District and concurrent detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, County Service Area 143 and County Service Area 152 of territory described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, LAFCO designated the City of Temecula as the conducting authority for the reorganization; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the reorganization as approved by LAFCO are that (1) prior to recordation of the Certificate of Completion, all applicable taxes, assessments and charges for services to be provided by the Temecula Community Services District shall be approved in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218; (2) in accordance with Government Code Section 56844(0 and 57330, the subject territory shall be subject to the levying and collection of any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment or tax of the City; (3) the City of Temecula shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless LAFCO, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO, its agents, officers, and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of LAFCO concerning this proposal; and (4) the effective date of the reorganization shall be July 1, 2001 or upon recordation of the Certificate of Completion, whichever is later; and WHEREAS, the reorganization was proposed by the City of Temecula on behalf of certain residents within the Vail Ranch community in order that the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District may provide community services to the residents of those communities in a more responsive and efficient manner; and WHEREAS, the regular county assessment roll is utilized by the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District; and WHEREAS, ad valorem taxes will not be levied on the affected territory for existing general obligation bonded indebtedness of the City of Temecula or the Temecula Community Services District; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby certifies that a Negative Declaration was approved for the proposed reorganization on July 28, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council held workshops on to explain the reorganization to R:\PLA~NING~ANNEXATN\21pa00.CC conducting authority reso.doc residents of the affected territory; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed reorganization was called for and held by the City Council at the place and time noticed therefor on February 13, 2001; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, LAFCO Resolution No. 35-00 was summarized and the City CounciJ heard and received any oral or written protests, objections, or evidence which was made, presented or flied; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered LAFCO Resolution No. 35-00 and has considered whether the proposed reorganization will be for the interest of landowners or present or future inhabitants within the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District and within the affected territory; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn against the proposed reorganization is less than 25 percent of the registered voters residing within the affected territory and less than 25 percent of the number of owners of land owning less than 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. Section 2. Pursuant to Division 3 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council hereby orders the reorganization designated as LAFCO No. 2000- 10-1, including concurrent annexations to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District and concurrent detachments from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, County Service Area 143 and County Service Area 152 of territory described in Exhibit A, subject to voter approval of all applicable taxes, assessments and charges for services to be provided by the Temecula Community Services District in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218. Such voter approval will have included all of the following: (1) two-thirds voter approval by the residents of the affected territory of a special tax against parcels within that territory for the maintenance, operation and servicing of public parks, recreational facilities, recreational and community services programs, median landscaping, arterial street lights and traffic signals; (2) two-thirds voter approval by the residents of the affected territory of rates and charges against parcels within that area for street lighting, slope maintenance, refuse collection, and road maintenance services provided to those parcels. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the executive officer of LAFCO. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecu[a at a regular meeting held on the 13th of February, 2001. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor R:\PLANNING\ANNEXATN\21pa00.CC conducting authority reso.doc 2 ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\PLA~NING\A~NEXATN\21pa00.CC conducting authority reso.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBIT A MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION R:\PLANNtNG\STAFFRPT~21PA00.Conducting Authority.doc 6 STEWART Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL RANCH INTO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 152 AND DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO 2000-10-1 Three parcels of land situated in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, State of Califomia, described as follows: PARCEL NO. 1 BEGINNING at an angle point on the existing City of Temecula boundary as described in a document recorded December 9, 1994 as Instrument No. 461244, Official Records of said county, hereinafter referred to as LAFCO No. 88-70-1, said point being the intersection of the southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and the centerline of Butterfield Stage Road (100.00 feet wide) as shown by Tract No. 23172, on file in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of said county; Thence along said City of Temecula boundary and the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road, South 22o57'33'' East, a distance of 1,016.04 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as North 22o56'22'' West, a distance of 1,016.04 feet) to an angle point on said boundary; Thence leaving said City of Temecula boundary and continuing along the centerline of Butterfield Stage Road South 22°57'33'' East, a distance of 238.79 f6et to the northeast comer of Parcel Map 23780 filed in Book 161 of Parcel Maps at Pages 92 through 99 inclusive, records of said county; Thence continuing along the centerline of Butterfield Stage Road South 22°57'33" East, a distance of 55.54 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 2,000.00 feet; Thence southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 26025'50", an arc distance of 922.60 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline of Butterfield Stage Road South 49o23'23'' East, a distance of 1,514.00 feet to the intersection of the centerlmes of Butterfield Stage Road and Nighthawk Pass (88.00 feet wide); Kmmm & SwrwA w EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 5 (continued) Thence along the centerline of Nighthawk Pass South 40036'32'' West, a distance of 884.29 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence southwesterly along said curve, also being the centerline of Nighthawk Pass, through a central angle of 18°41'32", an arc distance of 326.24 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline of Nighthawk Pass South 21055'00" West, a distance of 167.64 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northwesterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence southwesterly along said curve, also being the centerline of Nighthawk Pass, through a central angle of 49°30'49", an arc distance of 864.18 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline of Nighthawk Pass South 71°25'49" West, a distance of 130.56 feet to the intersection of the centerlines of Nighthawk Pass and Vail Ranch Parkway (100.00 feet wide); Thence along the centerline of Vail Ranch Parkway South 18°34'I 1" East, a distance of 134.68 feet to the beginning of a curve concave westerly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence southerly along said curve, also being the centerline of Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 35° 16'58", an arc distance of 615.80 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline of Vail Ranch Parkway South 16o42'47'' West, a distance of 101.80 feet to the beginning of a curve concave westerly, having a radius of 2,500.00 feet; Thence southerly along said curve, also being the centerIine of Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 08°26'51", an arc distance of 368.59 feet; Thence leaving said centerline North 72°21'54" West, a distance of 719.17 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northerly, having a radius of 4,000.00 feet; Thence northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 06°16'51", an arc distance of 438.49 feet; Thence North 66°05'03'' West, a distance of 545.80 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southerly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; Thence westerly and southwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 40°53'24'', an arc distance of 856.40 feet; Thence South 73001'33'' West, a distance of 552.40 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northerly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; EXHIBIT "A" Page 3 of 5 (continued) Thence westerly and northwesterly along said curve, through a central angel of 40°53'24'', an arc distance of 856.40 feet; Thence North 66o05'03'' West, a distance of 742.19 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southerly, having a radius of 1,600.00 feet; Thence westerly along said curve, through a central angle of 17°56'55", an arc distance of 501.22 feet; Thence North 84°01'58" West, a distance of 203.69 feet to the centerline of Vail Ranch Parkway and the beginning of a nontangent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet, a radial line to said beginning bears North 44°54'18" West; Thence northeasterly along said curve, also being along the centerline of Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 06°18'25% an arc distance of 110.08 feet to the intersection of the centeflines of Vail Ranch Parkway and Redhawk Parkway; Thence along the centerline of Redhawk Parkway North 38o35'53" West, a distance of 160.53 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 630.00 feet; Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being the centerline of Redhawk Parkway, through a central angle of 17°13'56", an arc distance of 189.48 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline of Redhawk Parkway North 21°21'57'' West, a distance of 297.87 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being the eenterline of Redhawk Parkway, through a central angle of 34°51'27", an arc distance of 730.05 feet to the intersection of Paseo Parallon and Redhawk Parkway; Thence continuing along the centerline of Redhawk Parkway North 56o13'23'' West, a distance of 1,287.57 feet to the southwesterly comer of Tract No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of said county; Thence leaving the centerline of Redhawk Parkway and along the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 North 33o46'37'' East, a distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Redhawk Parkway; Thence continuing along the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 South 87°01'26" East, a distance of 126.59 feet; Thence continuing along the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 North 68°58'51" East, a distance of 3,161.86 feet to the southeast comer of Lot 19 as shown by said map; Kmrc & Sw w^ w EXHIBIT "A" Page 4 of 5 (continued) Thence leaving the southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 and along the easterly line of said Lot 19 North 16o37'49" West, a distance of 754.15 feet to the northeasterly comer thereof, said comer also being a point on the northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southeasterly fight-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and the existing City of Temecula boundary as described by said LAFCO No. 88-70-1; Thence along the northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southeasterly fight-of-way line of State Highway 79 and the existing City of Temecula boundary North 73°22'11" East (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 73°23'17'' West), a distance of 3,609.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 629a: acres, more or less. PARCEL NO. 2 BEGINNING at the northwesterly comer of that parcel of land described by Lot Line Adjustment No. 3942 recorded September 29, 1997 as Instrument No. 352794, Official Records of said county, said comer also being a point on the northerly line of Tract No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of Riverside County, also being the southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and the City of Temecula boundary as descfibed by said LAFCO No. 88-70-I; Thence along the northerly line of said parcel also being the northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, the southeasterly fight-of-way line of State Highway 79, and the existing City of Temecula boundary North 73°22'11'' East, a distance of 180.00 feet to the northeasterly comer of said parcel; Thence at a fight angle and along the easterly line of said parcel South 16°37'49" East, a distance of 225.00 feet to the southeasterly comer thereof; Thence at a fight angle and along the southerly line of said parcel South 73°22'11" West, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southwesterly comer thereof, said comer also being the southeasterly comer of that parcel of land described by Grant Deed recorded September 11, 1996 as Instrument No. 344516, Official Records of said county; Thence along the southerly line of said parcel and continuing South 73°22'11" West, a distance of 211.17 feet to the easterly fight-of-way line of Redhawk Parkway as shown by said Map; Thence along a radial line South 63°23'04'' West, a distance of 66.83 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said Tract No. 23172, also being the centerline of Redhawk Parkway and the existing City of Temecula boundary, said point also being the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 1,200.00 feet as shown by said map; & Sw w^ w EXHIBIT "A" Page 5 of 5 (continued) Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being the westerly boundary of said Tract No. 23172, the centerline of Redhawk Parkway, and the existing City of Temecula boundary, through a central angle of 9°40'38", an arc distance of 202.68 feet; Thence continuing along the westerly boundary of said Tract No. 23172, also being the centefline of Redhawk Parkway, and the existing City of Temecula boundary North 16°56'18'' West, a distance of 34.97 feet to the northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide), and the existing City of Temecula boundary; Thence along the northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the, southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79, and the existing City of Temecula boundary North 73°22'11" East, a distance of 295.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 2.44 acres, more or less. PARCEL NO. 3 BEGINNING at the northwesterly comer of that parcel of land described by Lot Line Adjustment No. 3910 recorded March 26, 1997 as Instrument No. 100461, Official Records of said county, said comer also being a point on the northerly line of Tract No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of Riverside County, also being the southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and the City of Temecula boundary as described by said LAFCO No. 88-70-1; Thence along the northerly line of said parcel also being the northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 and the existing City of Temecula boundary North 73°22'11" East, a distance of 283.00 feet; Thence at a right angle and along the easterly line of said parcel South 16o37'49" East, a distance of 283.00 feet to the southeasterly comer thereof; Thence at a right angle and along the southerly line of said parcel South 73°22'11" West, a distance of 283.00 feet to the southwesterly comer thereof; Thence at a right angle and along the westerly line of said parcel North 16037'49'' West, a distance of 283.00 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 1.84 acres, more or less. RAN/blt LEGAIdJ800/878-1 B 12/21/2000 ~O~;AL A.~C¥ FORMATION ~: / ROAD ~ ~ ,, ~L~ ~ ~ ~; ~*e~:~. v~,L RANCH ~},.~ LEGEND BOUNDARY ~ ~ ~TR~ C~NTERLINE PROPER~ LINE ~ SHADED AR~ EXCLUDED FROM ANNEXATION. N.T.5. K~c~ CITY 0F TEMECU~ ~ ~o~*~*~* INTO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AR~AS 143 & 15~ AND DETACIIMENT FROM .~O~ [Jn;ver~[,t A~e-Riv~:i,:~. CA 9~50 .909 fiS,I [900 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT I)ISTRICT [,AFCO ;~(lO0 10-[. PA SC~: N.T.S. DATE: 01/02/01 D~ By:ST~F CHEC~D BY:~ W.O.: 870-1 ~G~ I OF 5 , ~MECU~ ~ BOUND~Y PARCEL 1 ~Z 7~8~ x~ d C7 ~ LEGEND I ~ ~ EXISTING CI~ OF TEMECU~ ~ ~'~:~ BOUNDARY STRE~ CENTERLINE PROPER~ LINE ~ SHADED AR~ EXCLUDED SCALE: 1"=800' ~ FROM ANNE~TION. K~rcr~ CITY OF TEMECU~ E~IBIT REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXAT]ON OF VAIL RANCII ~]--~ TE~ADT ,.~o~.o.*.~ INTO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 152 AND DETACtlMENT FROM ~c~s;V i~e. ak,~;~. C~ 9~5~; · 90~ 6S~ ~9~0 TIlE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO 2000-10-1, PA 00-0021 1"=800' DATE: 01/02/01 D~ By:ST~F CHEC~D BY:~ IV.O.: 878-1 HC~ 2 0F 5 BOUND~Y ~o ~ K~cm CITY 0F TEMECU~ ~ REORGANIZATION TO 1NCLUDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL RANCII ~A~T ..... ,*..Tt~ INTO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACItMENT ~FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 152 AND DETACIIMENT FROM .~6s~ u~:~e.s:~y t,~u- Ri~,~i,:e cA ~)¢~,n' · g~,~ ~a~ 6~o TilE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT I)ISTRICT SC~: 1"=800' DAT~: 01/02/01 D~ By:ST~F CHEC~D BY:~ W.O.: 878-1 L©CAL OF TEMECU~ PARCEL 2 (SEE w BOUND~Y ~ ~ PARCEL 3 (SEE D~AIL HEREON)/ ~ / D~AIL HEREON) / STATE HIGHWAY 79 ~ / TEMECU~ BOUND~ / L40 ~j~ L 2 ~ PARCEL 5 DETAIL L56 ~ LSO --, SCALE: 1"=200' / I SCALE: I ~=200' ~ ~ ~ ~GEND t I ~ I ~l ~ EXISTING CI~ OF TEMECU~ ~ I BOUNDARY .t ~ L33 :~ L32 ---- ~E~ CENTERLINE PROPER~ LINE PARCEL 2 DETAIL ~ SH~ED AR~ EXCLUDED FROM ANNEXATION. SCALE: 1"=200' K~c~ CITY OF TEMECU~ ~ ~0~ INTO THE CITY OF TEMECULA ANB CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 15~ AND DETACHMENT FROM ~S0~ Un~e~ a~e · ~e~s~oe. C~ ~S0~ - ~a~ ~aq [90~ THE RIVERSII)E COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SC~: ~ ~0~ DATE:O1/02/00 D~ BY:ST~F CHEC~D BY:~ W.O.: 878-1 ~G~ 4 0F 5 COURSE SHEET LINE TABLE I CURVE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING'~ CURVE LENGTH RADIUS I DELTA L1 1016.04 S22'5T`3`3"E C1 922.60 2000.00 26'25'50" L2 2,38.79 S22'57',3,3"E C2 ,326.24 1000.00 18'41 ',32" L3 55.54 S22'5T`3,3"E C,3 864.18 1000.00 49',30'49" L4 1514.00 S49'2,3'2,3'E C4 615.80 1000.00 ,35' 16'58" L5 884.29 S40'36',32"W C5 ,368.59 2500.00 8'26'51" L6 167.64 S21'55'00"W C6 4.38.49 4000.00 6' 16'51" L7 1,30.56 S71'25'49"W C7 856.40 1200.00 40'5,3'24" L8 1.34.68 S18'.34'11"E C8 856.40 1200.00 40'5.3'24", L9 101.80 S16'42'47"W C9 501.22 1600.00 17'56'55" LIO 719.17 N72'21'54"W C10 110.08 1000.00 6'18'25" L11 545.80 N66'OS'O3"W C11 189.48 6,30.00 17'1,3'56" LI2 552.40 S7.3'01',3,3"W C12 7,30 05 1200.00 ,34'51 '27" L1,3 742.19 N66'OS'O,3"W C1`3 202.681 1200.00 9'40',38", · L14 20,3.69 N84'01 '58"W L15 160.53 N38'55'5`3"W L16 297.87 N21'21 '57"W L17 1287.57 N56'1,3'2`3"W L18 50.00 N,3`3'46'`37"E L19 126.59 S87'01 '26"E L20 .3161.86 N68'58'51"E L21 754.15 N 16',3T49"W L22 `3609.69 N7,3'22' 11 "E L31 225.00 S16'57'49'E' . L52i 180.00 S75'22' "W L54 66.83 S65'25'04"W L35 `34.97 N16'56'lB"W .-~ L41 285 O0, S16'`3T49"E I L42i Kmmm CITY OF TEMECULA EXmSrr REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL RANCII TE~/AI~T .......... eo INTO ]'HE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACI-IMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 152 AND DETACIIMENT FROM 5502 t}n:vers;ly i,e · aiv~t'iiCe. [:a 9?5[}? - 0fig fi~4 6[ItlO TIlE RIVERSIDE COUNI'Y WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 01/02/01 DRAWN BY:STAFF CHECI~ID By:RAN W.O.: 878-1 FIGURE 5 OF 5 LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 1016.04 S22'5T,33"E L2 238.79 S22'57'33"E L,3 55.54 S22'57'33"E L4 1514.00 S49'2,3'2,3'E L5 884.29 S40'36'32"W L6 167.64 S21'55'00"W L7 1,30.56 S71'25'49"W L8 1.34.68 S18'.34'11 L9 101.80 S16°42'47"W LIO 719.17 N72'21'54"W L11 545.80 N66'O5'O3"W L12 552.40 S75'01 ',35"W L1,3 742.19 N66'O5'OS"W · L14 20,3.69 N84'01 '58"W L15 160.53 N38'35'55"W L16 297.87 N21'21 '57"W L17 1287.57 N56'13'23"W L18 50.00 N33'46'37"E L19 126.59 S87'01 '26"E L20 .3161.86 N68'58'51"E L21 754.15 N 16'37'49~W L22 3609.69 N73'22' 11 "E L,30 180.00 N73'22'11 '% L,31 225.00 S16'37'49'E' L32 180.00 S73'22' t 1 "W L`3`3 211.17 S73'22'11 "W L34 66.83 S63'2.3'04"W L,35 .34.97 N 16'56' 18"W L,36 295.33 N73'22'11 L40 283.00 N73'22' 11 'E L41 283.00 S 16'37'49"E L42 283.00 S7`3'22' 11 "W L43 283.00 N 16'37'49"W CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA Cl 922.60 2000.0( 26'25'50" C2 ,326.24 1000.00 18'41',32" C,3 864.18 1000.00 49',30'49" C4 615.80 1000.00 ,35'16'58" C5 ,368.59 2500.00 8'26'51" C6 438.49 4000.00 6'16'51" C7 856.40 1200.00 40'5,3'24" C8 856.40 1200.00 40'53'24" C9 501.22 1600.00 17'56'55" C10 110.08 1000.00 6'18'25" C11 189.48 6,30.00 17'1,3'56" C12 730.05 1200.00 ,3~51'2T' C1,3 202.68 1200.00 9'40'38" ATTACHMENT NO. 3 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS R:\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~21PA00.Conducting Authority.doc 7 errs' OF TEMECULA FISCAL MODEL GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND COSTS AT BU1LDOUT SCENARIO: VAIL RANCH Specific Plan Trander tax: New Development Tunmver Sales/Use Tax: On s/re Sales/Use Tax: Off site Transient occupancy tax Business License tax Franchises Motor vehide in-lieu State gasoline tax Measure A .~ales tax (capital projects) Fines and fodeitures Subtotal Net c/Measure A sales tax (capital projects) Total Recun~g Costs: Police pmt~fion Net fire co~t Animal contzol Public Works - Streets Public Works - Other ]:~blic Works - Admln Comm~ty Selvices! plnnnln~ (Non-~ee Supported) Citywide overhead Total Net Recurhng Fiscal Impact Recurring Rtn, enue/Cost P~io $138,910 $0 $18,158 $1,59~,095 $0 $19,469 $71,469 $229,446 $96,336 $121,824 $32,254 $55,053 $2,379,014 $121.824 $2,257,190 $719,445 $260,837 $6,048 $169,852 $2,549 $20,688 $158,368 $139,106 $177,227 Sl,654,121 $603,069 1.36 Percent 53% 0.0% 0.8% 67.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 3.00/0 9.6% 4.00/0 5.1% 1.4% 2.3% 0.0% 100.0% 43.5% 15.8% 0.4% 10.3% 0.2% 1.3% 9.60/0 8.4% 10.7% 100.0% Note: 1. These ar~ net Genexai Fund costs that are not covered by the CSD parcel charge revenues. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLAN FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICE R:\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~21PA00,Conducting Authority.doc 8 Plan for Provision of Municipal Services Planning Application No. PA00-0021 Annexation of the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Areas To the City of Temecula, California City of Temecula PA00~)02 I Annexation of Vad Ranch Plan of Services INTRODUCTION The following discussion provides documentation of the City of Temecula's plan to provide and/or assure the provision of murficipal and other associated services to an area consisting of approximately 720 acres and is generally referred to as the Vail Ranch area for proposed annexation into the City. ThSs plan has been prepared pursuant to Sections 56800 and 56653 of the C~lifomia Government Code, et. Seq. The plan describes the extent to which the following services will be provided to this territory. police protection, fire protection, water service, wastewater service, storm water service, solid waste disposal, street maintenance, median and slope maintenance, parks, electric, natural gas, telecommunications, cable, schools, libraries, street sweeping and animal control. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION The proposed annexation area is bounded by the City's southern city boundary and SR 79 to the north, the Redhawk golf course and the Redhawk Specific Plan to the south and west, and Butterfield Stage Road to the east. The annexation area contains the Vail Ranch Specific Plan area (SP No. 223), which was approved in August of 1988 bythe Riverside CountyBoard of Supervisors. This area has largely been built out with the remaining areas currently under construction with single-family residential homes. The proposed annexation area consists of 720 total acres that includes approximately 1600 existing single-family detached unSts, two existing schools, three existing parks, two gas station/conve~ence markets, a Jack-N-The-Box fast food restaurant, a mirfi-storage facility and an industrial building complex. The specific plan area, as designed and approved provided for an ultimate build out of 2,431 dwelling uaits (1,234 single-family detached, 673 single-family attached, 524 multi-family). The actual development of the specific plan area; however, has occurred with fewer units with planning areas designated for multi-family residential units being converted to single-family detached residential uses. It is estimated that the project will ultimately have 1,800 units. The area also contains 102 acres of parks, two schools, 126 acres of commercial, and 11.5 acres of open space. The estimated ultimate overall gross density of the annexation area is around 2.4 dwelling units per acre. In Julyof 1998 City of Temecula City Council pre-zoned this area with the zoning designation "Specific Plan" as part of the Redhawk/Vail Ranch annexation proposal. This zoning designation establishes the exact land uses within Vail Ranch Specific Plan (which was adopted bythe Countyof Riverside) as the zoning for the area. F:~DeptskPLANNING~DEGANGE&ANNEX~PIan Services - Vail Ranch.doc City of Temecula PA00-0021 Annexation of Vail Ranch Plan of Services POLICE PROTECTION Police protection and law enforcement services are provided in the City of Temecula through a provision of services contract with the Riverside County Sherlff's Department. The Cityhas one main station located at 30755 Auld Road, and two storefront stations located at 27540 Ynez Road~ Suite J-9 and 28816 Pujol Street. For fiscal year 1999/2000 the city of Temecula provided an average of one officer per 1,000 residents with 51 sworn police personnel serving the City. Three to ten patrol cars are on duty at all times, plus additional services including traffic enforcement and investigation, Community Service Officers, Community Oriented Policing Teams and School Resource Officers. Personnel also include Reserve Police Officers, Police Volunteers and Police Explorers. The average response time to priority one calls in Temecula is approximately 6 minutes. The average Sheriff's Department response time to priodty one calls within the proposed annexation area is approximately 12 minutes. For fiscal year 1999/2000, the City of Temecula has allocated $6.3 million for police protection. In order to meet the City's established Level of Service standard of one officer per 1,000 residents, the increase in population as a result of the proposed annexation will initially requlre an additional five police officers and a total of seven officers at build out. FIRE PROTECTION Fke protection services are provided in the City of Temecula through a provision of services contract with the Riverside County Fire Department, which operates in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). The City of Temecula has three existing fire stations within the cityllmits. Station 73 is located at 27415 Enterprise Circle, Station 12 is located at 28330 Mercedes, and Station 84 is located at 30650 Pauba Road, approximately 4 miles north of the subject site. There is also one additional fire station in the unincorporated area of the. county, which is in the vicinity of the City of Temecula. Station 83 began operation at French Valley Airport in July of 1998. This station, though located in an unincorporated portion of the Countyis jointly funded and operated bythe City and the County. The City also has a mutual aid agreement with Riverside County, California Department of Forestry (CDF), and the City of Murrieta. Current staffing levels for the stations servicing the City of Temecula include the following: Station 73 - Station 12 - Station 84 - Station 83 - engine, 1 truck engine, 1 second roll engine (manned byvolunteers) engine, 1 second roll engine & 1 breathing support squad (manned byvolunteers), and medic squad engine (The number of staff members for an engine is three persons, with four persons for a truck and two F:\Depts\PLANNING\DEGANGEY~ANNEX~Plan Services - Vail Ranch.doc 2 City of Temecula PA00-0021 Annexation of Vail Ranch Plan of Services persons for a medic squad [1 firefighter and 1 paramedic]) For fiscal year 1999/2000 the City of Temecula alloCated approximately $4.5 for fire protection services. No additional increase in fire protection services will be required as a result of this annexation. Fire Station 84 within the City of Temecula currently services the Vail Ranch area and will continue to do so after annexation. A future fire station site is being evaluated at the southeast portion of the city. This site is contingent upon future approved development within this area. The earliest this fire station would be built is 2001/2002. WATER SERVICE The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) supplies potable water to the City of Temecula. Between 50% and 85% of the City's water supply (depending on the annual rainfall) is distributed from the Murrleta-Temecula groundwater basin. This water supplyis supplemented from imported water from the Eastern Metropolitan Water District (EMWD). The RCWD has a current annual supply capacityof 59,000 acre feet, which is adequate to meet current demand for potable water including the annexation area. Rancho California Water District is investigating a number of sources to meet long- range demands including upgrading existing wells, adding wells, implementing a water recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water. A combination of these improvements will ultimately be necessary to accommodate future demands in the City. The RCWD currently supplies water to the Vail Ranch area and would continue to do so upon armexafion. WASTEWATER SERVICE Wastewater facilities for the Gty of Temecula and its sphere of influence are provided by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) which is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Eastern Municipal Water District is currently meeting treatment demand in the Temecula area and has a current capacity to treat 10 million gallons per day at its facility. Additionally, Rancho California Water District CRCWD) has wastewater treatment facilities, which service the Temecula area. These facilities have the capacityto treat 3.4 million gallons per day. The Vail Ranch area is currendy being serviced bythe EMWD facility and will continue to be upon annexation. Rancho Callfomia Water District anticipates expansion of its existing facilities when the demand generated by continuing development requires k. STORM WATER Cunently all storm water for the annexation area drains to Temecula Creek All flood control facilities within the annexation area are either maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RG=C&WCD) or the Redhawk Home Owner's Association. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for the maintenance of all facilities which F:~Depts~PLANNING~DEGANGEJ~ANNEX~Plan Services - Vail Ranch.doc 3 City o£ Temecula PA004)02 I Annexation of Vail Ranch Plan of Services are designed to the specifications of and accepted bythe~ Tiffs arrangement exists for all territories within Riverside County, whether they are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of a city or whether they are within an unincorporated area of the County. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula all flood control facilities within the Vail Ranch area will continue to be maintained by RCFC&WCD. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Currently solid waste service to the aunexadon area is being provided to the County by Waste Management, Inland Valley. Solid waste disposal service within the City limits is provided by CR&.R which is a privately operated company being contracted bythe City. Upon annexation to the City, solid waste disposal services for the armexafion area will ultimately be provided by CR&IL The City will negotiate with the County, Waste Management Inland Valley and CR&R to transition service for the next fiscal year following the finalization of the armexafion. Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 939 all cities and counties must have a waste stream source reduction plan. The City has such a plan and will implement that plan in the annexed area. Cunenfly the Cityis in compliance with AB 939, with the diversion of 53% of its solid waste. STREET MAINTENANCE Cunently all existing dedicated streets and roads within the Vall Ranch Specific Plan area are maintained bythe Riverside CountyRoad Department. Upon annexation into the Cityof Temecula, the Citywill become responsible for their maintenance. After annexation all existing streets will be added to the City's Pavement Management Systerm Funding for the City's Pavement Management System comes primarily from Gas Taxes and Measure A Funding which is allocated to municipalities based on population. With the annexation of this area and the associated increase in the population, additional funds will be available for road maintenance. All future improvements within the annexation area will be constmcted by the developers as part of ongoing construction associated with the Vail Ranch Specific Plan. The City does not currently have any Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) within the area, nor or any anticipated for the near future. MEDIAN AND SLOPE MAINTENANCE The maintenance of all medians and the majority of slope areas are currently the responsibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143 with the smaller isolated areas the responsibility of private property owners. Upon annexation, all medians and those slopes which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsib;1;ty of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Currently (2iA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract firms to provide median and slope maintenance services. The rates and charges to pay for this service are levied against the property tax rolls. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and F:\Depts\PLANNING\DEGANGEJ~ANNEXWlan Services - Vail Ranch.doc 4 City of Temecula PA00-0021 Annexation of Vail Ranch Plan of Services award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). Upon finalization of the annexation all medians and those slopes which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The maintenance of arterial street lights, traffic signals, slopes and medians will be paid for bythe City's Special Tax. Rates and charges for this maintenance will be levied on the property tax role. In November 1999 over 90% of the Vail Ranch residents voted in favor of the imposition of the City's Special Tax when the combined annexation of the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas was being proposed. If it is determined that the results of from the November 2, 1999 election in the Vail Ranch area are valid with respect to this proposed annexation, no subsequent election will be required. If it is determined that results of the 1999 election are no longer valid, approval of the proposed annexation will be contingent upon approval of the City's (TCSD) Special Tax from a subsequent future election by the Vail Ranch Residents. PARK SERVICES The maintenance of park areas in the annexation area is currently the respomibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143. Upon annexation all parks within the annexation area which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Currently CSA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract firms to provide park maintenance services. The rates and charges to payfor this service are levied against the property'tax roils. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). The maintenance of parks, recreational facilities and the provision of recreational and human services programs will be paid for by the City's Special Tax. Rates and charges for this maintenance will be levied on the properrytax role. In November 1999 over 90% of the Vail Ranch residents voted in favor of the imposition of the City's Special Tax when the combined annexation of the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas was being proposed. If it is determined that the results of from the November 2, 1999 election in the Vail Ranch area are valid with respect to this proposed annexation, no subsequent election will be required. If it is determined that results of the 1999 election are no longer valid, approval of the proposed annexation will be contingent upon approval of the City's (TCSD) Special Tax from a subsequent furore election bythe Vail Ranch Residents. ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE Currently the City of Temecula and surrounding areas is served by Southern California Edison which is also currendy providing service to the proposed annexation area. No change in the provision of electrical services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. F:XDepts\PLANNING~DEGANGEJ~ANNEX~Plan Services - Vail Ranch.doc 5 City of Temecu[a PA00-002 I Annexation of Vail Ranch Plan of Services NATURAL GAS SERVICE Natural gas service for the ~ty of Temecula and the surrounding areas is currently being provided by Southern California Gas Company. No change in the provision of natural gas services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES Telecommunication services for the City of Ternecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation area, are provided by General Telephone. No change in the provision of telecommunication services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES Cable television services for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation area, are provided by TCI. No change in the provision of cable television services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. SCHOOLS The proposed annexation area is within the Temecula Unified School District. Upon armexadon, no change will occur with respect to what school district the area falls within, or to the what schools students from the area will attend. The Vail Ranch Specific Plan requires the construction of schools to mitigate impacts with respect to the demand for schools. Annexation of the area will not affect either the demand or the provision of schools within these specific plan areas. The schools that currently ser~'e the area, student capacity and current enrollment are listed in the following table: SCHOOL CAPACITY CURRENT (# of students) ENROLLMENT (# of students) Pauba Valley Elementary 825 788 Redhawk Elementary 675 631 V~ Ranch 1 I88 1247 Temecula Valley High School 2997 2589 Helen Hunt Jackson Elementary 825 589 LIBRARIES The annexation area is currendya part of the Riverside CountyLibrarySystenz The City of Temecula F:\DeptsXPLANNING\DEGANGE3~ANNEXWlan Services - Vail Ranch.doc 6 City of Temecula PA00-002 I Annexation of Vail Ranch Plan of Services is also a parc of the Riverside County Library System. Upon annexation, the library district, which serves the area, will not change. STREET SWEEPING No street sweeping service is currently being provided to the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula street-sweeping services will be provided to the Vail Ranch area on a weekly basis bythe City's franchised solid waste hauler, (]iR&aR. ANIMAL CONTROL Animal control services within the armexadon area are currenflyprovided byRiverside County. Upon armexadon into the City, animal control services will be provided through a Gity contract with Lake Elsinore Animal Ffien& (LEAF). No appreciable change in service levels is andclpated as a result of annexation. SUMMARY In evaluating the impacts associated with the proposed annexation, several analyses have been conducted by the City to evaluate the availability of public services and facilities. These analyses included the subject Plan for Serdces, a Fiscal Impact Analysis and an Environmental Assessment that was conducted for the combined armexafion of the Vail Ranch and Redhawk areas. The results of these analyses concluded that the subject property will not have a significant impact on the capabilities of the City or other service/infrastructure providers to provide services. Currently the City is capable of meeting the demands for services within the current City boundaries and the proposed annexation area. As development occurs, the Citywill receive additional property taxes and future sales tax associated with future commercial development. Upon annexation, the City will provide services consistent with the demand generated by the areas within the annexation area based upon the general funds available to the City, City-wide assessments and the established Community Facilities Districts. Shaven Nelson, CityManager City of Temecula, California F:kDepts\PLANN1NG\DEGANGEJ~ANNEXSPIan Services - Vail Ranch.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MARCH 21, 2000 (COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS HEARING) R:\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~21PA00.Conducting Authority.doc 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager March 21,2000 PA00-0021 (Annexation)- Adoption of Resolution Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area PREPARED BY: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: Make a Finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on July 28, 1998 for the Redhawk\Vail Ranch Annexation (PA98-0205) addresses ail environmental impacts associated with this project. 2. ADOPT a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 00-__ A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS REORGANIZING THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY WITHIN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TO DETACH SAID TERRITORY FROM CSA 143, CSA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATED AS PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0021; Direct staff to prepa~:e and submit application and associated materials for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). BACKGROUND: In December of last year, following the unsuccessful annexation effort of the Redhawk/Vail Ranch areas, the City received a petition from the residents within the Vail Ranch area requesting to be annexed separately from the Redhawk area. In light of the Vail Ranch resident's overwhelming support for annexation, over 90% of the residents had voted in favor of annexation, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the separate annexation of the Vail Ranch Area on December 7, 1999. F:\Depts\PLANNING~ANNEXATN~IPA00.CC Reso of Intent.doc 1 The Resolution of Application is the first step in the formal annexation process. The actions being requested at this time include making a finding that the Negative Declaration adopted on July 28, 1998 for the Redhawk/Vail Ranch annexation continues to accurately address the impacts for this project, and approving a resolution initiating annexation proceedings. Following the City Council's approval of these items, application will be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Staff expects to submit the application around the first of April. As a general rule, processing through LAFCO takes approximately three to four months, this means that the Vail Ranch annexation is likely to go to hearing before LAFCO at their July, 2000 meeting. If approved at this meeting the City is required to hold a protest hearing within 60 days of the LAFCO approval. This protest hearing could be scheduled for a meeting in September. If the annexation is not protested the City could potentially utilize the election results for the imposition of a special tax and rates and charges for refuse collection and slope, park, median and lighting maintenance from the November 2, 1999 election as part of the RedhawkNail Ranch annexation. All these actions could lead to the annexation being finalized July 1,2001 (Fiscal Year 2001 ). At this time, staff has still not received a final decision as to whether the results from the November 1999 elections will be valid for this annexation or whether an additional election would need to be held. In the recent past, concerns about separating the Vail Ranch and Redhawk areas for annexation have been expressed by certain Redhawk residents. The concern is that a separate annexation of Vail Ranch might decrease the viability of annexing the Redhawk area. However, staff believes that the separate annexation of Vail Ranch would not preclude annexation of the Redhawk at some future date if residents of that area support it. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The environmental impacts associated with this project are addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1998 for the Redhawk/Vail Ranch annexation (PA 98-0205). FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact associated with the annexation of the Vail Ranch area has been addressed within a fiscal impact analysis conducted by the City for the Vail Ranch area. At the December 7, 1999 meeting the City Council allocated $17,260.00 from the General Fund for processing of annexation application Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution No. 00 ~ - Page 3 Exhibit "A" - Map of Annexation Area F:\Depts\PLANNING~ANNEXATN~21PA00.CC Reso of Intent.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 00- F:\Depts\PLANNING~ANNEXATN~IPA00.CC Reso of Intent.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 00-__ A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS REORGANIZING THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SAID TERRITORY WITHIN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TO DETACH SAID TERRITORY FROM CSA 143, CSA 152 AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATED AS PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0021 WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to request the commencement of proceedings reorganizing the jurisdictional boundaries of cedain inhabited territory described heroin and known as the Vail Ranch Specific Plan aroa to include said territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Temecula and within the Temecula Community Services District and to detach said territory from County Service Aroa 143 and County Service Aroa 152 and the Riverside County Waste Management District pursuant to Part 3 of Division 3 of Title 5 of the California Government Code; WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted a General Plan for the City of Temecula and whereas the analysis within the General Plan includes said areas; WHEREAS, said area is entirely within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to the existing City boundary; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA00-0021 which proposed the reorganization be processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed adoption of this Resolution was posted at City Hall, the County Library - Rancho California Branch, the United States Post Office - Temecula Branch, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, was published in the Californian, and was mailed to the Local Agency Formation Commission and to each interested and each subject agency; WHEREAS, the City Council considerod Planning Application No. PA00-0021, on March 21, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved Planning Application No. PA00-0021; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. That the City Council hereby requests the commencement of proceedings be taken pursuant to Part 3 of Division 3 of Title 5 of the California Government Code to reorganize the jurisdictional boundaries of certain inhabited territory described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto F:\Depts\PLANNING~ANNEXATNg21PA00.CC Reso of Intent.doc 4 and by this reference incorporated herein, and known as Vail Ranch Specific Plan area, to include said territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Temecula and within the Temecula Community Services Distdct and to detach said territory from County Service Area 143 and County Service Area 152 and from the Riverside County Waste Management District. Section 3. That the City Council requests that the proposed reorganization be subject to the condition that the residents of said territory approve a special tax and rates and charges to finance the cost of providing services to the territory. Section 4. Findings. That the City Council, in adopting a Resolution requesting the commencement of proceedings to reorganize the jurisdictional boundaries of the territory herein referred to as the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area to include said territory within the corporate boundaries of the City of Temecula and within the Temecula Community Services District; and the detachment of said territory from County Service Areas (CSA) 143 and 152, and the Riverside County Waste Management District (approving Planning Application No. PA00-0021 ) hereby makes the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration which addressed the environmental impacts associated with this project was adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1998 and this document determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Specifically, police services is an area which has been identified as an area which will be affected by annexation. After mitigation measures are incorporated, impacts to police services will be considered less than significant. 3. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the' standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. 4. The proposed annexation area is entirely within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to the City's corporate boundary. The area is substantially surrounded by the City's existing corporate boundary. 5. The territory within the proposed annexation area is within a substantially developed area which is continuing to develop. The proposed annexation area is not prime agricultural land (as defined by Section 56064 of the Government Code), and is designated for urban growth by the City of Temecula's General Plan. 6. The project is being proposed on behalf of certain residents within the subject territory in order that the City may provide community services to the residents of said territory in a more responsive and efficient manner. 7. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget. 8. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. F:\Depts\PLANNING~ANNEXATN~21PA00.CC Reso of Intent.doc 5 9. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Section 5. Environmental Compliance. A Mitigated Negative Declaration which addressed the environmental impacts associated with t~is project was adopted by the City Council, and this document indicated 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 Mitigation Monitoring Program were added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, was granted. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ,1998. ATTEST: Jeff Stone, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ,2000, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk F:\Depts\PLANNING~ANNEXATN~IPA00,CC Reso of Intent.doc 6 APPROVA~ CITY A'I-I'ORNEY ~.d£~ ~/) ~ DIRECTOR OF FINAN,,~.~ CITY MANAGER ~'~Y/~] I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services February 13, 2001 TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for the Vail Ranch Annexation Area for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 PREPARED BY: ~k,~' Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 0t- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES WITHIN THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-1 (VAIL RANCH) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 BACKGROUND: The purpose of the TCSD Rates and Charges is to provide necessary community services and programs to property owners within the City of Temecula. The TCSD operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and its boundaries are the same as those of the City of Temecula. The City Council of the City of Temecula, by its Resolution No. 2000-20, initiated proceedings to annex certain unincorporated territory known as the Vail Ranch community ("Vail Ranch") to the City of Temecula and the District. The annexation was approved by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on December 15, 2000 as: LAFCO No. 00-10-1 Reorganization to Include Concurrent Annexations to the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District, and Concurrent Detachments R;\RUSEP\Vail Ranch Rates & Charges.2001bod.doc from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, County Service Area 143 and County Services Area 152. The registered voters in Vail Ranch approved rates and charges for the Vail Ranch annexation area in an election held in November 1999, thus complying with Proposition 218 and state law. The rates and charges presented for Vail Ranch for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 are the same as those approved in the November 1999 election. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, this Initial Levy Report ("Report") is prepared and presented to the Board to prescribe Service Level B, Service Level C and Service Level D Rates and Charges for the parcels and territory identified as Vail Ranch beginning in FY 2001-2002. Property owners pay only for the TCSD services that they actually receive through separate rates and charges on their property tax bill. The Community Services, Parks and Recreation and Service Level A Rates and Charges previously levied by the TCSD were replaced by the City's Parks/Street Lighting Tax, approved by the voters as Measure C on March 4, 1997. Although the TCSD continues to operate and maintain the parks and recreational facilities through a cooperative agreement with the City, the actual levy budget for the special tax will be considered by the City Council as a separate item on February 13, 2001. As a result, the TCSD is currently comprised of the following four (4) remaining service levels: Service Level B - Residential Street Lights. Operations, maintenance, utility costs and administration of residential street lighting. Service Level C - Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance. Operations, maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD. Service Level D - Refuse Collection, Recycling and Street Sweeping. Operation and administration of the refuse and recycling program, and street sweeping services for single family residences. Service Level R - Streets and Roads. Operations, construction, and maintenance of streets and roads throughout the City. Service Level "B" includes only those property owners within residential subdivisions that receive street lighting services. The proposed rate of $25.68 per property owner has not been increased from last fiscal year. Residential street lights in Vail Ranch Tract 28832 are privately maintained through a Homeowner's Association. Therefore, the 152 parcels within that Tract have been excluded from this service level. Service Level "C" includes only those property owners within residential subdivisions receiving TCSD maintenance of slopes and perimeter landscaping. Previously, the TCSD administered six (6) rate levels for Service Level "C". With the annexation of Vail Ranch, a new rate level, C-7, has been added to provide services in that area. The rate levels are as follows: Rate C-1: $ 48.00 Rate C-2: $ 89.00 R:\RUSEP~Vail Ranch Rates & Charges.2001bod.doc Rate C-3: $116.00 Rate C-4: $175.00 Rate C-5: $ 70.00 Rate C-6: $225.00 Rate C-7 $129.00 Service Level "D" provides refuse, recycling and street sweeping services to all single family residential properties in the City of Temecula. For Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the proposed rate of $172.56 per improved residential parcel has not been increased from the past two fiscal years. The rate has been held the same for the past two years in accordance with a negotiated amendment to the solid waste franchise agreement. The rate shall remain at $172.56 through fiscal year 2002-2003. Service Level "R" includes only those parcels which receive services for the maintenance of certain unpaved roads that are washed out dudng rainstorms. The Vail Ranch annexation area has no areas that require this service and, therefore, no parcels in Vail Ranch will be assessed this service level. The levy formula used to fund these services has not been changed from last fiscal year. Only those property owners who receive services from a particular service level pay for those services. The levy and collection of the TCSD Rates and Charges is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15273 of the State Guidelines because the rates and charges are necessary to maintain existing services within the TCSD. FISCAL IMPACT: The total Levy Budget for Vail Ranch for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is $574,985. The revenue generated from the TCSD Rates and Charges will fund slope maintenance; residential street lighting; and recycling and refuse collection services in the Vail Ranch annexation area. A'I-FACHMENTS: 1. Report on Rates and Charges for Service Levels B, C and D of the Temecula Community Services District with Respect to the Vail Ranch Annexation 2. Resolution No. CSD 2001- Service Levels B, C, and D. R:\RUSEP~Vail Ranch Rates & Charges.2001bod.doc CITY OF TEMECULA VAIL RANCH ANNEXATION Report on Rates and Charges for Service Levels B, C and D of the Temecula Community Services District With Respect to the Vail Ranch Annexation Fiscal Year 2001/2002 PUBLIC HEARING: February 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Rates and Charges of the Temecula Community Services District Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula ("City"), effective December 1, 1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("District") to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction previously provided by the County of Riverside ("County"). The boundary of the District is coterminous with the City boundary, and includes all parcels within the City with the City Council acting as the Board of Directors ("Board") for the District. The District collects property-related fees and charges ("Charges") in order to provide services and maintain the improvements within the District. The District was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Title 6, Division 3 of the California Government Code ("CSD Law"). Each fiscal year, an Annual Levy Report is prepared, filed and approved by the Board. The Annual Levy Report describes the District, any changes to the District and the proposed Charges for the fiscal year. The Charges contained in the Annual Levy Report are based on the historical and estimated cost to service properties within the District. The services provided by the District and the corresponding costs are budgeted and charged as separate Service Levels and include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, and revenues. Each parcel is charged for the services provided to the parcel. The District provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection in numerous residential developments as well as road improvement and maintenance within specified areas of the District. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the District has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for residential street lighting (Service Level B), perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance (Service Level C), refuse collection (Service Level D), and road improvement and maintenance (Service Level R) services furnished by the District, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. The Vail Ranch Annexation The City Council of the City of Temecula, by its Resolution No. 2000-20, initiated proceedings to annex certain unincorporated territory known as the Vail Ranch specific plan area (the "Vail Ranch Community") to the City of Temecula and the District as part of Reorganization No. 00-10- 1 of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County. One element of the Reorganization will be the assumption by the Temecula Community Services District of the responsibility for providing certain services to the Vail Ranch Community. A condition of the Reorganization is the approval of rates and charges to be levied against properties in the Vail Ranch Community in order to pay for these services. Report on Rates and Charqes Proposed In Connection With the Vail Ranch Annexation This Report on Rates and Charges ("Report") is prepared and presented to the Board pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, to prescribe Service Level B (Street Lighting), Service Level C (Pedmiter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance) and Service Level D (Refuse Collection) Rates and Charges for the parcels in the Vail Ranch Community for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. The territory and properties identified and described in this Report includes parcels within the Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, 28832 and Parcel Map Nos. 23780 and 28731. The legal description of the annexation area is described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forthlin full. The word "parcel", for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessment Number by the Riverside County Assessor's Office. The Riverside County Auditor/Controller uses Assessment Numbers and specific Fund Numbers to identifi/on the tax roll properties charged for District services. A Public Hearing is held each year before the Board to allow the public an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding the District and regarding the rates and charges proposed in this Report. Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at the noticed Public Hearing and review of the this Report, the Board may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report and confirmation of the Charges, the Board shall order the levy and collection of Charges for Fiscal Year 2001/02. In such case, the levy information will be submitted to the Riverside County Auditior/Controlier and included as Charges on the property tax roll for the various services provided in Fiscal Year 2001/02. Voter Approval Pursuant to Article Xlll D of the California Constitution Article Xlll D of the California Constitution requires property-owner or voter approval for new and increased property related fees. Rates and charges for Service Level D are specifically exempt from this approval requirement, because these rates and charges are fees or charges for refuse collection services. At the November 2, 1999 consolidated election, the voters of Vail Ranch approved, with a 90% yes vote, rates and charges for Service Level B and Service Level C at the same rate as is proposed by this Report. Therefore, no further voter approval is required for the adoption of the rates and charges described herein. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. General Description of District Services The District prevides certain property related services consisting of four (4) separete Service Levels to parcels throughout the District. Each parcel within the District is charged for the proportional cost of the services attributable to the parcel. Each Service Level has differing costs depending upon the services provided. All parcels identified within a Service Level share in the cost of the service. The costs associated with the service are proportionately spread among all properties within that Service Level to which the service is provided. The Service Levels are identified as follows: · Residential Street Lighting · Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance · Refuse Collection · Road Improvement and Maintenance (Not applicable to the annexation area) B. Vail Ranch Annexation Area Legal Description The legal description of the annexation area is described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporeted herein as though set forth in full; and includes parcels within the Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, 28832 and Parcel Map Nos. 23780 and 28731. C. Description of Service Levels The proposed services applicable to residential parcels within Vail Ranch for which the charges will be imposed beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 include: residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; and refuse collection., Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting - includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the District provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of local street lighting improvements. The current rate for Service Level B is $25.68 per residential parcel and shall be applied to residential parcels within Vail Ranch beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002, but excluding those parcels in Trect Map No. 28832 that are responsible for their own residential street lights through a Homeowner's Association. Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance - includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the District provides on-going servicing, operetion, and maintenance of perimeter landscaped areas and slopes within the public right-of-ways and dedicated easements adjacent to and associated with certain tracts and subdivisions. The level of maintenance required and the associated operating costs will be at an established rate level within the Service Level C Rates and Charges. Rate Level 0-7 is at a rate of $129.00 per residential parcel and shall be applied to parcels within Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Service Level D, Refuse Collection - provides for the operation and administration of the refuse collection program including recycling and street sweeping services for all single-family residential homes within the District. The current rate for Service Level D is $172.56 per single family residential home (developed residential parcel) and will be applied to all parcels within Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 that have been identified as developed with a residential home, beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The cost to provide services within Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 will be fairly distributed among each assessable property by the same methods and formulas applied to all parcels within the various Service Levels of the District. The following is the formula used to calculate each property's District charges and is applied to Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting); Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance); and Service Level D (Refuse Collection): Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcels (in Service Level) = Parcel Charge The following tables (Table I through III) reflect the levy calculations for each Service Level. TABLE I Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level B Property Type Single family residential Single family vacant Parcel Unit X Charge Per Parcel = Parcel Charge $25.68 Multiplier Per Parcel 1.00 $25.68 1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel A charge is imposed on all residential parcels, developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not subject to the charge. TABLE II Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level C Property Type Single family residential Parcel Charge per Unit X Parcel = 1.00 $129.00 Parcel Charge $129.00 Multiplier Per Parce A charge is imposed on all residential parcels developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not subject to the charge. TABLE III Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level D Property Type Single family residential Parcel Unit X 1.00 Charge per Parcel Multiplier Parcel [] Charge $172.56 $172.56 Per Parce This charge is imposed only on developed single-family residential parcels that contain a residence. DISTRICT LEVY SUMMARY AND PROPOSED CHARGES Each Service Level within the District provides different and specific services to various parcels within the District. The rotes and charges prescribed for each service and level of service are proportionately spread to only those parcels that are provided each respective service (Service Levels). Table IV below provides general levy information for the various Service Levels within the entire District for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. TABLE IV TCSD Budget and Service Level Summary For Fiscal Year 2000-2001 District Budget and Charges Adopted in Fiscal Year 2000-200'1 SERVICE LEVEL Total Levy Charge Per Total Levy Budget Levy Unit Units Service Level B Residential Street Lighting $351,944 $25.68 13,705 Service Level C Local Landscaping and Slopes Rate Level #1 (C-1) $47,886 $46.00 1041 Rate Level #2 (C-2) $93,340 $89.00 1060 Rate Level #3 (C-3) $191,516 $116.00 1651 Rate Level CfA (C-4) $226,100 $175.00 1292 Rate Level #5 (C-5) $0 $70.00 0 Rate Level #6 (C-6) $0 $225.00 0 Rate Level # 7 (C-7) $0 $129.00 0 Service Level D Refuse Collection $2,551,817 $172.56 14,788 Service Level R Road Maintenance Rate Level #1 (C-1) $7,146 $115.26 75 Rate Level #2 (C-2) $4,572 $121.92 56 Service Levels proposed for Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002. TABLE V Proposed Service Level Charges For Vail Ranch Estimate Budget and Charqes for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 SERVICE LEVEL Total Levy Charge Per Planned Total Budget Levy Unit Levy Levy Units Units Service Level B: Residential Street Lighting $41,525 $25.68 1,617 1,617 Service Level C: Local Landscaping and Slopes $228,201 $129.00 1,769 1,769 Rate Level #7 (C-7) Service Level D: $305,259 $172.56 1,769 1,769 Refuse Collection The "Total Levy Units" and the resulting "Charge Per Levy Unit" (shown in Tables IV and V), reflect a method of apportionment that most fairly apportions the costs of the services to the parcels in that Service Level. EXHIBIT A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page ! of $ F_$grBIT "A' . REOIIGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANN'E~HON OF VAIL RANCH INTO ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 152 AND DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE cOUNTY WASTE RESOURCES lVIANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO 2000-10-1 Three parcels of land situated in the unincorporated ten/tory of the County of Riv~rsid% State of California, described as follows: PARCEL NO. 1 BEGINNING at ~n angle point on thc existing City of Temeculs boundary as clescn'bed in n document recorded December 9, 1994 as Instalment No. 461244, Official Records of said county, l~rcinafter ref=,,'& to as LAFCO No. 88-70-1, said point being th~ intorsocl~on of the southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and thc ceaterline of Butterfield Stage Road (I00.00 feet wide) as shown by Tract No. 23172. on file in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of said county; Thence along said City of Temecula boundary and the centerline of said Butterficld Stab,~ Road, South 22°$?'33" Bast, a distance of 1,016.04 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. as North 22056*22" West, a d/stance of 1,016.04 feet) to an angle point on said boundary; Thence leaving said City of Temecula boundary and continuing along the ceni~rline of Butt~field Stage Road South 22°$7'33" East, a distance of 238.79 feet to the northeast corner of Parcel Map 23780 filed in Book 161 of Parcel Maps at Pages 92 through 99 inclusive, records of said county; Thence continuing along thc ccnterline of Butterficld Stage Road South 22°57'33" East, a distance of 55.54 feet to the boglnning ora curve concave northcastcrly, hav~g a rudius of 2,000.00 feet; Thence southeasterly along said curvc, through a central angle of 26°25'50'', an arc distance of 922,60 feet; Thence continuing along thc centcrline of Butterficld Stage Road South 49°23'23'' East, a d/stancc of 1,514.00 feet to thc intcrsccgon of thc canterlines of Buttcrflcld Stagc Road and Nighthawk Pass (88.00 f~t wide); STEWART xxm'alw "A- , , (continued) F~ge 2 of $ Thence along thc centerline of Nighthawk Pass South 40°36'32" West, s distance of 884.29 feet to thc beginning ofa curve concave sout~asterly, having a radius of 1,000,00 feeg Thence southwesterly along said curvc, also being the ccnterlinc of Nighthawk Pass, through a cvntral angle of 18041'32", an arc distance of 32§.24 fe~t; Thence continuing along the centcrlinc of Nighthawk Pass South 21°55'00'' West, a distance of 167.64 feet to th~ b. csinning of a curve concave northwesterly, having e radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence southwesterly along said cta'~, also being thc cente~linc of Nighthawk Pass, through a central angle of 49°30'49", an arc distance of 864.1g feet; Thence continuing along the centerlinc of Nighthawk Pass 5curb 71°25'49" West, a distance of 130.56 feet to the intersection of fha centerllr~s of Nighthawk Pass and Vail Ranch parkway (100.00 feet wide); Thence along tho centerline of Vail Ranch parkway South 18°34'11" Ea~ a distance of 134.68 feet to the beginning of n curve concave wearily, having a radius of 1,000.00 fe~t; Thence southerly along said curve, also bclng the centerline of .vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 35°16'58'', an arc distance of 615.80 f~t; Thence contin~ng along thc centerline of'Vail Ranch Parkway South 16042'47" Wear, a distance of 101.80 f~et to the beginning of a cu~¢ concave westerly, having a radius of 2,5OO.00 feet; Thence southerly along said curve, also being tl~ centerlinn of Vail Ranch Parkway, through a c~nlral angle 0f08°26'51'', an arc distance of 368.59 feet; Thence leaving said centerlinc North 72°21'54'' West, a distance of 719.17 feet to the beginning cfa cm'w concave northerly, having a radius of 4,000.00 feet; Thence no~hwesterly along said curve, through a cxatral angle of 06°16'51", an ar~ diC,~ee of 438.49 feet; Thence North 66005'03" We~ a distance of 545.80 feet to thc beginning of a curve concave southerly, having a raditn of 1,200.00 feet; Thence westerly and southwesterly along said curve, through, a central angle of 40°53'24'', aa arc distance of 856.40 feet; Thence .%uth 73°01~33" West, a distance of 552.40 feet to the beginning of a ~urve concave nort~rly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; STEWART ~;xmm? ,'A,' - P~ge _a ors (continued) Thence westerly and northwesterly ~long said curve, through a central angel of 40°$3'24'', an arc disunce of 856.40 feet; -.-Thence North 66'05'03" West, e distance .of 742.19 foot. to the beginning, of a curve .... concave southerly, having e radius of 1,600.00 fce~; Thence westerly along said curve, through a central ar~le of 17°56'$$", an arc distance of $01.22 fc~, Thence North 84001'58'` Wcst, a distance of 203.69 feet to thc ccnterline of Vail Ranch Parkway and thc beginning ora nontengent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet, a radial line to said beginning bears Nor~ 44'54'18" West; Thence northeasterly along said curve, also being along thc ccntcrllnc of Vail Ranch Parkway, through a ccntral angle of 0601g'25'', an arc distance of ll0.0g feet to thc interscclion of the centerlines of Vail Ranch Parkway and Redhawk Parkway; Thence along thc centcrline of Redhawk ?arlcway North 38°3Y53'' West, a distance of 160.53 feet to the beginninl~ of a curve concave noC, he~sterly, having a radius of 630.00 f~ct; Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being the ccntcrlinc of Red"mwk Parkway, through a central magic of 17°13'56'', an arc distance of 189.48 feet; Thcncc continuing elon~ the centerlinc of Rcdhawk Parkway North 21°21'57" West, a distance of 297.87 fcct to thc beginning of e curve concavc southwesterly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet;, Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being tho ccntcrline of Redhawk Parkway, through a central angle of 34D51'27'', an arc distance of 730.05 feet to the intcrscctlon of Pasco Parallon and Redhawk Parkway; Thence continuing along thc ccntcrline of Redhawk Parkway North 56°13'23" West, a distance of 1,287.57 feet to the southwesterly comer of Tract No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusivc, records of said county; Thence leaving thc centcrline of Rcdhawk Parkway and along the southcrly linc of said Tract No. 23172 North 33046'37'' East, a distance of $0.00 feet to a point on the easterly fight-of-way line of Reclhawk Parkway; Thence continuing along tho southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 South 87e0'1'26'' East, a distance of 126.59 f~, Thence continuing along tho southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 North 68°5 g'$1" Bast, a distance of 3,161.86 feet to thc southeast corner of Lot 19 as shown by said map; STEWART l~x~Ir "A- (continued) Thence leaving thc southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 and along ~e easterly linc of said Lot 19 Nor~ 16037'49" Wc~ a distance of 754.15 feet to thc northeastm.l¥ comm' thereof, aaid corn= also being a Imint on the north=l¥ line of said Tract No. 23172, also being, the southe~sm'ly right-of-way line of Slate Highway 79 (142,00 f~t wide) and.tha .... existing City of Temecula boundary as described by said LAFCO No. 88-70-1; Thence along thc northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southeasterly right-of-way line of Sta~e Highway 79 and,thc exisling City of Tcmeeula bounda~ North 73°22'11" East (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 73°23'17'' WcsO, a distance of' 3,609.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 62~-~ ecre~, more or less. PARCEL NO. 2 BEGINNING at the norlhw~sterly comer of that parcel of land described by Lot Line Adjustment No. 3942 recorded September 29, 1997 as Instnunent No. 352794, Official Records of said county, said comer also being a point on thc northerly line of Tract No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of Riverside County, also being the southeasterly fight-of-way linc of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet w/dc) and the City of Tcmemlla boundary as described by said LAFCO No, 88o70-11 Thence along thc northerly linc of said parcel also being thc northerly line of said Tract No, 23172, thc southeasterly right-of-way line of S~atc Highway 79, and the cxis~ir~ City of Temecula bounda~ North 73°22'11.'' East, a disease of 180.00 feet to the northeasterly ca-ncr of said p~rcel; Thence at a right angle and along thc easterly line of said parcel South 16037'49" East, a distance of 225.00 feet to the southeasterly corr.' thereof; Thence at a fight angle and along the southerly linc of said parcel South 73°22'11" West, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southwesterly comm. thereof, said comm. also being the southcs~t~rly comer of that parcel of land described by Grant Deed recorded September 11, 1996 as Instrument No. 344516, Official Recorch o f said county; Thence along thc southerly line of said parcel and continuing South 73°22'11'' West, a distance of 211.1 ? feet to the easterly right-of-way line of Redhawk Parkway as shown by said Map; Thence along a radial line South 63°23'04" West, a distance of 66.83 fe~t to a point on the westerly boundary of said Tract No. 23172. also being the ccntcrlinc of Redhawk Parkway and the existing City of Temecula boundary, said point also being the beginning of a non-tangant curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 1,200.00 feet as shown by said map; Kr ,crr ~)TEW^IIT ¥ EXHIBIT "A" Page '~ of 5 (continued) Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being the westerly boundary of said Tract bio. 23172, the ccnterline of Redhawk Parkway, and thc existing City of Tcmecula boundary, through a central angle of 9°,~0'38", an arc-distance of 202.68 feet; Thence continuing along thc westerly boundary of said Tract No. 23172, also being thc centerllnc of R~dhswk Parkway, and the existing City of T~mccula boundary North 16'56'18" West, a distance of 34.97 feet to the northerly linc of said Tract No. 231'/2, also being the southeasterly right-of-way linc of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide), and the existing City of Temeenla boundary; Thence along the northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also bcin~ the, southeasterly righl-of-way line of State Highway ?9, and thc cxisting City of Tcmccula boundm'y North 73 °22'11" East, a distance of 295.33 fcct to the POINT OF BEGII~gqlNG. Contains 2,44 acres, more or less, PARCEL NO. 3 BEGINNING at thc northwesterly corner of that paroel of land descn'oed by Lot Line Adjustmmt No, 3910 recorded March 26, 1997 aa Irmtrumant No. 100461. Official Records of said county, said comer also being a point on thc northerly line of Tract No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of Riverside County, also being thc southeasterly right-of-way linc of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet w/de) and thc City of Temecula bounda~ as daacrlbcd by said LAFCO lqo. 88-70-I; Thence along the northerly linc of said parcel also beins thc northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southeasterly right-of-way linc of State Highway 79 and the existing City of Tcmecula boundary North 73°22'11" ~,ast, a distance of 21t3.00 feet; Thence at a right angle and along the easterly linc of said pm-cci South 16°37'49'' East, a distance of 283.00 fcct to the southeast~ly comer thereof; Thence at a right anglc and along the southerly line of said parcel South 73°22'11" West, a distance of 283.00 feet to the southwesterly comer thereof; T~c~ce at a right angle and along the wcstm-ly linc of said parcel North 16°37'49" West, a distance of 283.00 to the POINT OF BEOI2qNING. Contains 1,84 aa, cs, more or less. l~N/blr LBOAL/$800/878-1B 12t21/2000 N.T.~. g'XISTING crlY OF TEM£CULA BOUNDARY STREET CE:Iq'rERUN[ PROPERTY UN£ SHADED AREA EXCLUDED FROM ANNEXA1]ONo LEGEHD CITY OF TEMECULA R£OR~ANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL TtANCH INT0 THE CITY OP TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 1{5lm AND DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOUBCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFC0 2000-10-1, PA O(]-0021 DATE:OI/OE/01 DRAWN_ B%': STAFF CHECi~'D By;PAN 'W,O.: Imq'B-i SCALE: N.T,S~ FIGU]~ I ~ 5 " ~ . I EXISTING CITY ~,\~.\'~ o~ ~M~cu~ BOUND~ ~ c~ OF I , ~ECU~ I souND I ~C~ ~ Ilillllll ~I~NO ~ OF ~MECU~ / ~ -/ ~i~l~ ~UN~ / CI~ OF TEMECU~ IN~ T~g CITY 0F Tg~CU~ AND CONCUR~g~ D~AC~ FRO~ COUNTY S~R~CE ~REAS 143 & 15~ ~D D~TAC~U~ FRO~ ~ / ~FCQ 2OO0-tO-t. PA OO-OO2~ , , , I EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY L18 EXISTING ~ Cl'l~ OF c. TEMECULA cio BOUNDARY VAIL RANCH PARCEL 1 LEGEND EXISTING CiTY OF' TEM£CULA BOUNDARY STRF..E'F CENTERUNE PROPER'~Y UNE SHADED AREA EXCLUDED FROM ANNEXATION, SCALE-' 1"=800' INOQRPOII&TIO CITY OF TEMECULA REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL )U~i'CH INTO THE CITY OF TE~ECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 1~,2 AND DETACHMENT Fi[OM THE RIVERSIDE cOUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO 2000-10-1, PA O0-OOal .AIl PARCEL 2 (SEE DETNL HER£ON) EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNBARY STATE HIGHWAY 79 PARCEL 3 (SEE DETAIL HEREON} EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY $CAIr= 1"=600' P.O,B. PARCEL ._~,_L3. p.O.B. ~) L¢2 PARCEL 2 PARCEL $ DETAIL ?-.- ,.==. i. I ~.~ 1.33 [.32 PARCEL 2 DETAIL II 1LU l LL ZX~S'nN~ c~ or 'rzu£cu~ BOUNDARY STREET cENTERUNE ~ PROPERTY LINE SHADED AREA EXCLUDED FROM ANNEXATION, SCALE: t"-200' CITY OF TEMECULA REORGANIZATION 'TO TN~LuDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL RANCH ~NT0 TH~ CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURR]~NT DET&CHIJEIT~' FR0)~ COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 14n & I~Z A~TD DET&CE~EIqT FROM THE R~,'ERSIDE COUI~TY WASTE RESOURCES ~ANAOEMEITr DISTRICT LAFC0 2000-10-1. PA 00-0021 RCALE: ~ ~OW'K trlGOa~ 4 OF 5 COURSE SHEE1 LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 1016.04 S22'57'33'E L2 238.79 $22'57'33'E L5 55.54 S;22'57'33'E L4 1514.00 S49'23'23'E LS~ 684,.29 S40'38'3~'W L5 167.64 921'55'00"W L7 130.56 $71'25'49'W LB 134.68 918'34'11'E Lg 101.80 S 18'42'47'W LIO 719.17 N72'~l'5~"W L1 545.801 N~6'OO'O3,'W L12 552.40 S73'01'33"W L13 742.19 N86'OS'O3'W L14 203.89 N64'01 '58"W L15 160.53 N.,3~'.3.5'53"W. L16 297.87 N21'21 '57"W L17 1287.57 N56'13'23"W L18 50~ .0.0 N33'46'37'E, L19 126.59 $87'01 '26'1 L20 3181,86 N1~8'58'51'E L.21 754,;..15 N 16'37'49"W 1_22 3609.69 N7~';~2'11 "E L30 180.00 N7,3'~;? 11 'E 1-31 225,00 S16'37'49'[ L32 180.00 S73'22'11"w L54 66.83 S63'23'04'W L35 34.97, ....... N16'56'18"W 1.36 295.33 N73'22'11 "E L40 28,3.00 N73'22'11 "E L41 263.00 S16'37'49"E L42 283.00 S7,3'22'11 'W L43 283.00 N 18'37'49"W CURVE TAaE - CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA Cl 922.60 .... 2000.00 26'25'50' C2 326.24 1000.00 18'41 '32' c3: 664.16 1000.00 C4' 815.60 1000.00 35'16'56" C5: ,368.59 2500.00 8'26'51" C6 438.49 ,. ,4~)00.00 ~,16'51 C7 856.40 1200.00 40'53'24' C6 656'.401 .1200.00 40'53'24' C9 501.221 1600.00 17'56'55' ClO 110.o8 1000.00 ~..,18'25" Cl 189,48 630.00 17'1,,3'56' C12 730.05! 1200.00 34'51'27' C13 202.68 1200.00 9'40'36' CITY OF TEMECUJA REORGA.~IZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL INTO THE CITY 0F TE~ECU~ AND CONCURRENT D~ACHME~ FROM COUN~ SER~CE ~EAS 143 · 158 ~D DETACH~ ~0M THS ~E~SIDE COU~'~ WAS~ RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIST~CT ~FCO R000-IO-I, PA O0-O021 EXItlB1T EXHIBIT B - 2001/2002 COLLECTION ROLL Parcel identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be the parcel as shown on the County Assessor's map for the year in which this report is prepared. A listing of parcels within this District, along with the charges, has been submitted to the City Clerk and, by reference, is made part of this report. RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2001-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING SERVICE LEVEL B, SERVICE LEVEL C, AND SERVICE LEVEL D RATES AND CHARGES WITHIN THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-1 (VAIL RANCH) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings: A. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1, 1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"), to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction. B. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for services furnished by it, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roil in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, property taxes collected within the TCSD in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. C. By Resolution No. TCSD 99-13, the Board of Directors of the TCSD adopted Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting), Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance), and Service Level D (Refuse Collection) rates and charges within the territory planned to be annexed to the City as part of the reorganization designated as LAFCO No. 98-14-1 (the "Redhawk and Vail Ranch Reorganization"). The territory included as part of the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Reorganization was comprised of the Redhawk specific plan area (the "Redhawk Community") and the Vail Ranch specific plan area (the "Vail Ranch Community"). D. In the November 2, 1999 consolidated election, the adoption of these rates and charges was submitted to the registered voters of the Vail Ranch community as Measure N. Measure N received approximately 90% approval from the Vail Ranch voters, who were the only voters to whom Measure N was submitted. This 90% approval far exceeded the two-thirds approval required under Article XIIID of the California Constitution. The adoption of the rates and charges was separately submitted as Measure P to the registered voters of the Redhawk community, who did not approve the rates and charges by the necessary two-thirds vote. E. Subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. TCSD 99-13 and the approval of Measure N by the Vail Ranch electorate, the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Reorganization was abandoned. However, the annexation of the Vail Ranch Community to the City is now planned as part of the reorganization designated as LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 (the "Vail Ranch R:resos\CSD 99-13 I Reorganization"). F. By this resolution, the Board of Directors of the TCSD intends to implement the rates and charges previously approved for Service Level B and Service Level C by the voters of Vail Ranch through their approval of Measure N. This Resolution does not increase the rate of the previously approved rates and charges for these service levels beyond the level authorized by Resolution No. TCSD 99-13, nor does it revise the methodology for these rates and charges so as to result in an increased amount being charged to any person or parcel. G. By this resolution, the Board of Directors further intends to establish rates and charges for Service Level D upon properties in the Vail Ranch Community at the same level at which such rates and charges are imposed upon other properties in the TCSD. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, voter approval is not required for the imposition or increase of the rates and charges for Service Level D because Service Level D is a fee or charge for refuse collection service. H. As part of the Vail Ranch Reorganization, the Vail Ranch Community will be detached from Riverside County Service Area No. 143 ("CSA 143"). Upon detachment, the Community will no longer be subject to taxes and charges levied by CSA 143 for the provision of park and recreation services, median/slope maintenance, and street lighting. The taxes and charges currently levied by CSA 143 are of a higher rate than those proposed to be charged by the TCSD, pursuant to this Resolution, and by the City of Temecula, pursuant to its Resolution No. 2001- Therefore, a result of the reorganization will be that property owners in the Vail Ranch Community will experience a decrease in the special taxes and rates and charges that burden their property. Section 2. On February 13, 2001, pursuant to Sections 61765.2 through 61765.6 of the Government Code, a public hearing was conducted on the rates and charges proposed in a report entitled "Report on Rates and Charges for Service Levels B, C, and D of the Temecula Community Services District with Respect to the Vail Ranch Annexation" (the "Report"), which report is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. At the public hearing, all oral and written objections, protests and comments by any interested person concerning the proposed rates and charges were heard and considered. Written protests against the proposed rates and charges were presented by less than a majority of the owners of the parcels upon which the rates and charges are proposed for imposition. Section 3. The Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that, based on the District budget, the rates and charges to be imposed do not exceed the reasonable cost of the services to be provided to the affected parcels by the TCSD for fiscal year 2001-02. Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby overrules any and all objections and protests and adopts the following rates and charges for fiscal year 2001-02 for the services to be provided by the TCSD for fiscal year 2001-02: Rp_rvin~_ I ~_v~l B - R~.~idc. ntinl Rtr~.~t I i0ht.~ $25.68 per improved residential lot ~¢.rvic.~. I ¢.v~l ~ - P~_rirn~t~r L~nd.~c~.nin0 and ~lnp~ M~intc. n~nc.~. $129.00 per improved residential lot R:Resos\CSD99-13 2 Servine [ P. vP.I D - R~fuse C~llP. c. tinn; inc. hmdin@ RP.c..vc. lin9 and Rtrp_et SwP. P. pin~ $172.56 per improved residential lot Section 5. The TCSD shall prescribe, revise and collect such rates and charges pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2. The TCSD shall collect such rates and charges at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the property taxes collected within the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such property taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of property taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to these rates and charges, except for California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. 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 encumbrance 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 shall not result in a lien against the property, but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection. Section 6. if a property owner subject to these rates and charges questions the classification of the owner's property for fiscal year 2001-02, or claims that an error has been made with respect to the implementation of the rates and charges or the application of the rates and charges to the owner's property for that fiscal year, such property owner must appeal the levy by filing an appeal with the Secretary of the TCSD before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2001, pursuant to procedures established by the TCSD, in order to be considered under the appeal of classification or correction of errors program. Section 7. If a property owner subject to these rates and charges believes that payment of the rates and charges for fiscal year 2001-02 would create a hardship for that property owner during that fiscal year, such property owner must appeal the levy by filing a hardship appeal with the Secretary of the TCSD before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2001, pursuant to procedures established by the TCSD, in order to be considered under the hardship appeal program. Section 8. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the levy and collection of these rates and charges is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and Section 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the rates and charges are necessary to maintain existing improvements within the TCSD. Section 9. The Secretary of the TCSD shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District this 13th day of February, 2001. Jeff Comerchero President R:Resos\CSD99-13 3 A'I-FEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC District Secretary/City Clerk R:Resos\CSD99-13 4 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA VAIL RANCH ANNEXATION Report on Rates and Charges for Service Levels B, C and D of the Temecula Community Services District With Respect to the Vail Ranch Annexation Fiscal Year 2001/2002 PUBLIC HEARING: February 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Rates and Charqes of the Temecula Community Services District Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula ("City"), effective December 1, 1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("District") to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction previously provided by the County of Riverside ("County"). The boundary of the District is coterminous with the City boundary, and includes all parcels within the City with the City Council acting as the Board of Directors ("Board") for the District. The District collects property-related fees and charges ("Charges") in order to provide services and maintain the improvements within the District. The District was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Title 6, Division 3 of the California Government Code ("CSD Law"). Each fiscal year, an Annual Levy Report is prepared, filed and approved by the Board. The Annual Levy Report describes the District, any changes to the District and the proposed Charges for the fiscal year. The Charges contained in the Annual Levy Report ara based on the historical and estimated cost to service properties within the District. The services provided by the District and the corresponding costs are budgeted and charged as separate Service Levels and include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, and revenues. Each parcel is charged for the services provided to the parcel. The District provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, and refuse collection in numerous residential developments as well as road improvement and maintenance within specified areas of the District. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the District has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for residential street lighting (Service Level B), perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance (Service Level C), refuse collection (Service Level D), and road improvement and maintenance (Service Level R) services furnished by the District, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. The Vail Ranch Annexation The City Council of the City of Temecula, by its Resolution No. 2000-20, initiated proceedings to annex certain unincorporated territory known as the Vail Ranch specific plan area (the "Vail Ranch Community") to the City of Temecula and the District as part of Reorganization No. 00-10- 1 of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County. One element of the Reorganization will be the assumption by the Temecula Community Services District of the responsibility for providing certain services to the Vail Ranch Community. A condition of the Reorganization is the approval of rates and charges to be levied against properties in the Vail Ranch Community in order to pay for these services. Report on Rates and Charqes Proposed In Connection With the Vail Ranch Annexation This Report on Rates and Charges ("Report") is prepared and presented to the Board pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, to prescribe Service Level B (Street Lighting), Service Level C (Perimiter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance) and Service Level D (Refuse Collection) Rates and Charges for the parcels in the Vail Ranch Community for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. The territory and properties identified and described in this Report includes parcels within the Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, 28832 and Parcel Map Nos. 23780 and 28731. The legal description of the annexation area is described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. The word "parcel", for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessment Number by the Riverside County Assessor's Office. The Riverside County Auditor/Controller uses Assessment Numbers and specific Fund Numbers to identify on the tax roll properties charged for District services. A Public Hearing is held each year before the Board to allow the public an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding the District and regarding the rates and charges proposed in this Report. Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at the noticed Public Hearing and review of the this Report, the Board may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report and confirmation of the Charges, the Board shall order the levy and collection of Charges for Fiscal Year 2001/02. In such case, the levy information will be submitted to the Riverside County AuditiodController and included as Charges on the property tax roll for the various services provided in Fiscal Year 2001/02. Voter Approval Pursuant to Article Xlll D of the California Constitution Article Xlll D of the California Constitution requires property-owner or voter approval for new and increased property related fees. Rates and charges for Service Level D are specifically exempt from this approval requirement, because these rates and charges are fees or charges for refuse collection services. At the November 2, 1999 consolidated election, the voters of Vail Ranch approved, with a 90% yes vote, rates and charges for Service Level B and Service Level C at the same rate as is proposed by this Report. Therefore, no further voter approval is required for the adoption of the rates and charges described herein. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. General Description of District Services The District provides certain property related services consisting of four (4) separate Service Levels to parcels throughout the District. Each parcel within the District is charged for the proportional cost of the services attributable to the parcel. Each Service Level has differing costs depending upon the services provided. All parcels identified within a Service Level share in the cost of the service. The costs associated with the service are proportionately spread among all properties within that Service Level to which the service is provided. The Service Levels are identified as follows: · Residential Street Lighting · Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance · Refuse Collection · Road Improvement and Maintenance (Not applicable to the annexation area) B. Vail Ranch Annexation Area Legal Description The legal description of the annexation area is described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full; and includes parcels within the Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, 28832 and Parcel Map Nos. 23780 and 28731. C. Description of Service Levels The proposed services applicable to residential parcels within Vail Ranch for which the charges will be imposed beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002 include: residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; and refuse collection. Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting -' includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the District provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of local street lighting improvements. The current rate for Service Level B is $25.68 per residential parcel and shall be applied to residential parcels within Vail Ranch beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002, but excluding those parcels in Tract Map No. 28832 that are responsible for their own residential street lights through a Homeowner's Association. Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance - includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the District provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of perimeter landscaped areas and slopes within the public right-of-ways and dedicated easements adjacent to and associated with certain tracts and subdivisions. The level of maintenance required and the associated operating costs will be at an established rate level within the Service Level C Rates and Charges. Rate Level C-7 is at a rate of $129.00 per residential parcel and shall be applied to parcels within Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Service Level D, Refuse Collection - provides for the operation and administration of the refuse collection program including recycling and street sweeping services for all single-family residential homes within the District. The current rate for Service Level D is $172.56 per single family residential home (developed residential parcel) and will be applied to all parcels within Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 that have been identified as developed with a residential home, beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The cost to provide services within Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 will be fairly distributed among each assessable property by the same methods and formulas applied to all parcels within the various Service Levels of the District. The following is the formula used to calculate each property's District charges and is applied to Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting); Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance); and Service Level D (Refuse Collection): Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcels (in Service Level) = Parcel Charge The following tables (Table I through III) reflect the levy calculations for each Service Level. TABLE I Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level B Property Type Single family residential Single family vacant Parcel Unit X 1.00 1.00 Charge Per Parcel = $25.68 $25.68 Parcel Charge Multiplier $25.68 Per Parcel $25.68 Per Parcel A charge is imposed on all residential parcels, developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not subject to the charge. TABLE II Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level C Property Type Single family residential Parcel Unit X 1.00 Charge per Parcel = $129.00 Parcel Charge $129.00 Multiplier Per Parcel A charge is imposed on all residential parcels developed or undeveloped. Parks, open space areas, easements and non-buildable parcels are not subject to the charge. TABLE III Parcel Charge Calculation for Service Level D Parcel Charge per Parcel Property Type Unit X Parcel = Charge Multiplier Single family residential 1.00 $172.56 $172.56 Per Parcel This charge is imposed only on developed single-family residential parcels that contain a residence. DISTRICT LEVY SUMMARY AND PROPOSED CHARGES Each Service Level within the District provides different and specific services to various parcels within the District. The rates and charges prescribed for each service and level of service are proportionately spread to only those parcels that are provided each respective service (Service Levels). Table IV below provides general levy information for the various Service Levels within the entire District for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. TABLE IV TCSD Budget and Service Level Summary For Fiscal Year 2000-2001 District Budget and Charges Adopted in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 SERVICE LEVEL Total Levy Charge Per Total Levy Budget Levy Unit Units Service Level B Residential Street Lighting $351,944 $25.68 13,705 Service Level C Local Landscaping and Slopes Rate Level #1 (C-1) $47,686 $46.00 1041 Rate Level #2 (C-2) $93,340 $89.00 1060 Rate Level #3 (C-3) $191,516 $116.00 1651 Rate Level ~4 (C-4) $226,100 $175.00 1292 Rate Level #5 (C-5) $0 $70.00 0 Rate Level #6 (C-6) $0 $225.00 0 Rate Level # 7 (C-7) $0 $129.00 0 Service Level D Refuse Collection $2,551,817 $172.56 14,788 Service Level R Road Maintenance Rate Level #1 (C-1) $7,146 $115.26 75 Rate Level #2 (C-2) $4,572 $121.92 56 Service Levels proposed for Tract Map Nos. 23172, 23173, 23174, 28480, and 28832 beginning Fiscal Year 2001-2002. TABLE V Proposed Service Level Charges For Vail Ranch Estimate Budget and Charges for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 SERVICE LEVEL Total Levy Charge Per Planned Total Budget Levy Unit Levy Levy Units Units Service Level B: Residential Street Lighting $41,525 $25.68 1,617 1,617 Service Level C: Local Landscaping and Slopes $228,201 $129.00 1,769 1,769 Rate Level #7 (C-7/ Service Level D: $305,259 $172.56 1,769 1,769 Refuse Collection The "Total Levy Units" and the resulting "Charge Per Levy Unit" (shown in Tables IV and V), reflect a method of apportionment that most fairly apportions the costs of the services to the parcels in that Service Level. EXHIBIT A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A' REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION OF VAIL RANCH INTO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 152 AND DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTI~,ICT LAFCO 2000-10-1 Thrcc parcels of land situated in thc unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL NO. 1 BEOINNING at an angle point on the existing City of Temeculs boundary as described in a document recorded December 9, 1994 ss Insu'ument No. 461244, Official Records of said couuty, hereinafter refe~,-ed to as LAFCO No. 88-70-I, said point being the intersection of the southeasterly fight-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and the centerline of Butterfield Stage Road (I00.00 feet wide) as shown by Tract No. 23172, on file in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusive, records of said county; Thancc along said City of Temecula boundary and the centerline of said Butlcrficld Stage Road, South 22°57'33'' East, a distance of 1,016.04 feet (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as North 22°$6~22' West, a distance of 1,016.0,~ fcco to an angle point on said boundary; Thence leaving said City of Tcrnccula boundary and continuing along the cent~rline of Butterfleld Stage Road South 22°$7'33" East, a distance of 238.79 feet to thc northeast corncr of Parcel Map 23780 filed in Book 161 of Parcel Maps at Pagcs 92 through 99 inclusive, record~ of said county; Thence continuing alOng thc centarline of Buttcrficld Stage Road South 22°57'33" East, a distance of 55.54 feet to the bcglnning ora curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 2,000.00 feet; Thence southeasterly along said curvc, throush a central angle of 26°25'50'', an arc distance of 922,60 feet; Thence continuing along thc centcrline of Butterfield Stage Road South 49°23'23'' East, a distance of 1,514.00 feet to the intersection of the centarlines of Butterficld Stage Road and Nighthawk Pass (88.00 f~t wide); K Izcz= ~TEWAi~T zXmmT "A- ., (continued) Thence along thn centerline of Nighthawk Pass South 40°36'32'' West, a distance of 884.29 feet to the bcgioning cfa curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence southwesterly along said curve, also being the ccmerline of Nighthawk Pass, through a central angle of 18°41'32", an arc distance of 326.24 feet; Thence continuing along the centerlinc of Nighthawk Pass South 21°55'00" West, a d/stance of 167.64 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northwesterly, having a radius of l,O00.O0 feet; Thence southwesterly along said curve, also being the centerline of Nighthawk Pass, through a central angle of49°30'49'', an arc distance of 864.18 feetl Thence continuing along the centerline of Nighthawk Pass South 71°25'49" West, a dis~nce of 130.56 feet to the intcracction of the centc-rlincs of Nighthawk Pass and Vail Ranch Parkway (100.00 fcct wldc); Thence along the centerline of Vail Ranch Parkway South t8°34'11" Best, a distance of 134.68 feet to the beginning of a curve concave westerly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet; Thence southerly along said curve, also being the centefline of Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 35°16'58'', au arc distance of 61~.80 fc~t; Thence continuing along thc ccnterline of Vail Ranch Parkway South 16°42'47'' West, a distance of 101.80 feet to the beginning of a curve concave westerly, having a radius of 2,500.00 fect; Thence southerly along said curve, also being the centerlinn of Vail Ranch Parkway, fl~rough a central angle of 08°26'51", an arc distance of 368,59 feet; Thence leaving said eenkn'linc North 72°21'54'' West, a distance of 719,17 feet to the bcginning cfa curvc concave northerly, having a radius of 4,000.00 feet; Thence northwesterly ~leng said curve, through a central angle of 06016'51'', an arc distance of 438,49 feet; Thence North 66005'03" West, a disbmce of 545.80 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southerly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; Thence westerly and southwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 40"5Y24", an arc distance of 856,40 feet; Thence South 73°01'33" West, a distance of 552.40 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northerly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet; KRIEGER STEWART Ex~mx?",~" Pag, 3 ors (continued) Thence westerly and northwesterly along said curve, t.~ough ~ central angel o£ 40°~3'24", an m'c di~,u~e of 855.,~0 feet; · .Thence l~orth 66°05'03" West. a diatanee.oi' 742.19 feet to the .beginning of'a curve concave southerly, having a radius of 1,600.00 feet, Thenoe westerly along said curve, through a c~ntral angle of 17°56'55'', an arc distance of 50122 Thence North 84001'58*' West, a distance of 203.69 feet to thc centerline of Vail Ranch Parlo~ay and the beginning of a nontangent curve concave southcasterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet, a radial line to said beginning bears North 44°54'18'' West; Thence northeasterly along said curve, also being along thc centerlinc of Vail Ranch Parkway, through a central angle of 06°18'25'', an arc distance of 110.08 feet to the interscction of the centerlines of Vail Ranch Parkway and Redhawk Parkway; Thence along the centerline of Reclhawk Parkway North 38°35'53'' West, a distance 160.53 feet to the beginning of a curvc concave northeasterly, having a radius of 630.00 Thence northwesterly along said curvc, also being the centerlinc of Redhawk Parlov~y, through a central angle of l?°l 3~56'', an arc distance of 189.48 feet; Thc'ncc continuing along the centerlinc of Rcdhawk Parkway North 21°21'57'' West, a distance of 297.87 feet to thc beginning of a curve concave southwesterly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet, Thence northwesterly alons said curve, also being thc ccntcrline of Redhawk Parkway, through a central ar~le of 34°51'27", an arc dlstancc of ?30.05 feet to the intcrscction of Pasco Parallon and Redkawk Parkway; Thence continuing along thc c~ntexline of Redhawk Parkway North 56°13'23" West, a distancc of 1,287.57 feet to the southwcsm'ly comer of TI'act No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 inclusiv~, rc~ords of said counW; Tl~ncc leaving thc centerline of Redhawk Parkway and along the southerly linc of said Tract No. 23172 North 33°46'37'' East, a distance of 50.00 fcct to a point on the easterly fight-of-way llne ofRedhawk Parlcway; Thence continuing along the southerly line of said Tract No, 23172 South 87°0'1'26" East, a distance of 126.59 f~t; Thence continuing along thc southerly line of said Tract No. 23172 North 68°58'51" East, a distance of 3,161.86 feet to the southeast comer of Lot 19 as shown by said map; (continued) Thence leaving thc southerly line of said 'Pract No. 23172 and along the easterly line of said Lot 19 North 16°37'49`' West, a distance of 754.15 feet to the northeasterly comer th~rcof, said comer also being a point on the northerly linc of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southcesterly right-of-way linc of State Highway 79 (142,00 feet wide) and.the existing City of Temecula boundary as described by said LAFCO No. Thence along thc northerly line of said 'Ih'act No. 23172, also b~ing the southeasterly fight-of-way linc of State Highway 79 and.thc existing City of Tcmecula bounda~/North 73°22'11" East (recorded in LAFCO No. 88-70-1 as South 73°23'17" Wes0, a disi'ance of' 3,609.69 feet to the POENT OF BEGINNING. Contains 629~- acre~, more or less. PARCEL NO. 2 BBGINNING at the northwcsterly comer of that parcel of land descn'bcd by Lot Line Adjustment No. 3942 recorded September 29, 1997 as Insh'mnent No. 352794, Official Records of said county, said comer also being a point on thc northerly linc of Tract No. 23172 filed in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 throush 99 inclusive, records of Riverside County, also being the southeasterly fight-of-way llnc of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and the City of Temccula boundary ss described by said LAFCO No, 88-70-1; Thence along the northerly linc of said parcel also being thc northerly line of said Tract No, 23172, the southcsst~rly fight-of-way line cf State Highway 79, and thc cxlstin8 City of Temccula boundat7 North 73°22'11" East, a distance of 180.00 feet to the northeesterly comer of said parcel; Thence at a right angle and along the easterly line of said parcel South 16037'49" East, a distance of 225.00 fcct to the southesstcrly comer thereof; Thence at a right angle and along the southerly linc of said parcel South 73°22'11" West, a distance of 180.00 fcet to the southwesterly corner thereof, said comer also being the southcs~t~ly comer of that parcel of land described by Grant Deed recorded Septcmber I1, 1996 as Instrument No. 344516, Official P. ecorch of said county; Thence along thc southerly line of said parcel and continuing South 73°22'11'' West, a distance of211.17 fcct to thc easterly right-of-way line of' Redhawk Parkway as shown by said Map; Thence along a radial linc South 63°23'04" West, a distance of 66.83 feet to a point on the westerly bounda~ of said Tract No. 23172, also being thc eenterline of Redhawk Parkway and thc existing City of Tcmccula boundary, said point also being thc beginning of a non-tangent curve concave northeastedy and having a radius of' 1,200.00 feet as shown by said map; KRIEGE R STEWART zxm i? Pa e s ors ~ o ,., (contieuecl) -Thence northwesterly along said curve, also being the westerly boundary of said Tract No. 23172, thc centcrline of Redhawk Parkway, and thc existing City of Tcrnecula boundary, through a central angle of 9°,~0'38", an arc-distance of 202.68 feet; Thence continuing along the westerly boundary of said Tract No. 23172, also being thc cent~rlinc of Redhswk Parkway, and the existing City of Tcmccula boundary North 16°~6'18'' West, a distance of 34.97 feet to thc northerly linc of said Tract No, 23172, also bcing the soutbeas~erly right-of-way linc of State Highway 79 (I,12.00 feet wide), and the existing City of Temecula boundary; Thence along thc northerly linc of said 'lYact No. 23172, also being the, southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79, and thc existing City of Tcmccula boundary North 73°22'11" East, a distance of 295.33 fcct to the POIHT OF BEGINNING, Contains 2.44 acres, mor~ or less. PARCEL NO. 3 BEOINNING at the northwesterly comer of that parcel of land described by Lot Line Adjustment No, 3910 recorded March 26, 1997 as Inmrumant No. 100461, Official Records of said county, said comer also being a point on thc northerly linc of Tract No. 23172 iilcd in Book 251 of Maps at Pages 94 through 99 includvc, records of Riverside County, also being thc southeasterly right-of-way line of State Highway 79 (142.00 feet wide) and thc City of Temecula bounda~ as described by said LAFCO No. 88-70-I; Thence along the northerly linc of said pax-cci also being thc northerly line of said Tract No. 23172, also being the southeasterly fight-of-way llnc of State Highway 79 and the existing City of Tcraccula boundary North 73°22'11" East, a distance of 283.00 feet; 'I hence at a right angle and alon8 thc easterly linc of said parcel South 16°37'49'' East, a distance of 283.00 feet to the southea~xrly corner thereof; Thermc et a right angle and along the southerly llne of said parcel South 73~22'11" West, a distance of 283.00 feet to the southwesterly comer thereof; Thence at a right an§lc and along the westerly linc of said parcel North 16D37'49'' West, a distance of 283.00 to the POINT OF BEOINNING. Contains 1.84 acres, more or less. PO, N/blt LBOAId.r$00/878-1B 12/21/2000 I ,., / \ - ~.I?~.' ; ~OEND ~ ~E~ CE~RUNE PROP~W UNE ~~~ ~ S~ED ~ EXCLUD~ N,T,S, Kp~cm CITY, OF TEMECU~ FROM COUNTY SE~CE AREAS 143 k 35~ AND DETACHMENT FROM :~2 ~;~ ~.. ~;oe, ~ ~- ~-~-s~o T~ R~ESIDE COUN~ W~TE RESDURCES MANAGEME~ DISTEI~ ~FC0 2000-I0-1, PA O0-00~1 ~\.~ EXISTING CITY ,,,~.\'~ TE ECULA mI BOUN~ ~ ~C~I~NGoF , ~ECU~ VAIL RANCH PARCEL 1 ~ C7 I m ~UN~ PROP~ UN~ ~OM ~N~ON. K~cm CI~ OF TEMECU~ ~ "EO~GANI~TION V0 INCLUDZ ~rION O~ vAIL ~Nci~ FROM COUNTY SER~CE ~AS 143 a 15~ ~D DETAC~NT FROM sam ua;~ ~,.. ~,. ~ e~.~-~-~ THE RIVERSIDE COU~ WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DIST~ ~FCO 2000-10-~. PA 00-OO~l BC~: 1'=800' DA~:~I/O~/01 D~ ~:~ C~D BY:~ W.O.:, 878r'~ OF TEMECULA % '.. ~;G.~,',~.~'"'- BOUNDARY ~ $~ -P~ ~ \,,,~,.,,~...~.~..~.:.~.~.::.~.~:~., ,~~:~'..~ _ ~~ V~ RANCH' ~ · ~~, PARCEL 1 ~ECU~ c~o~ BOUND~ ~ ~ ~ SH~ AR~ ~CLUDED ~*/?~~ 5CA~: l"=BO0' ~ ~OM ~NE~TION, C[~ O~ TE~CU~ Kmmm ~,r~A~ ..~e.,~.,,=~ ~NTO ~ Cl~ O? T~CU~ ANn CONCURreNT D~TAC~MENT FROM COU~ SERVICE AR~AB 143 · ~0{ U,~.~V ~.. m,,~. ~. mt~t. ~-~-m{~ TBZ RI~RSIDE COU~Y ~T~ R~SOUBCKS ~NAU~M[NT DISTRICT [AFUO ~O00-iO-l. PA SC~: 1'-800' DA~: 01/02~01 D~ By:BT~ ~ ~Y:~ W.O.: 876-1 EXISTING CITY ~ Of TEMECULA ,PARCEL 2 (SEE;. w BOUNDARY f-PARCEL 3 (SEE ' DETAJL HEREON)/ ~ / DETAIL HEREON) / STATE HIGHWAY 79 ~ / ~J ~ I.J JJJ JJ.J~ I, JJ.j 111 ..... 11 IJ, JJJ~.~mL ~JLLJ ~ .U,JILUJ~JL~LLI.I~ ================================== .... TEMECULA BOUNDARY ,,/' L4-O PARCEL 2 PARCEL $ DETAIL I ~ ~ 5 LEGEND ~ I .U 1 LLI I n ~x~nNO cr~ or ~Ur. OUL~ BOUNDARY I PROPERTY LINE PARCEL 2 DETAIL FROM ANNEXATION, SCALE: 1'-200' K~z~cm CITY OF TEMECULA ~ R£OROA~i'~ATION ?0 INCLUDE ANNmTION OF VAIL RANCH FRO~ COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 143 & 152 AND DET,tCHM]~NT FROM 3~o~ t~;~/~,. ~,~, ~. g2~ol, m~-~4-~ THE R~V~RSIDE COUI~TY WASTE RESOURCES MANA~EMEI~? DISTRICT ' LAFCO ~O00-10-l.. PA SCALE: ~ ~tO~l~ DATE:O1/O~'/O0 DRAW By:STAFF CI~CKED COURSE SHEE1 i LIN~' TABLE CURVE, TA{~I"E" LINE LENGTH BEARING C_U. RVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA L1, 1016.04 ' S22'57'33'E i Cl 922.60 2000.00 ,26'25'50" : 1.21 238.79 522',57'33"E C2 .3.26.24 1000.00 15'4.1 '32" L3 55,54 S22'57'33'E C3 864.18 1000,00 49'30'49" L4 1514.00! S49'23'23"E C4 615.80 1000.00 35'16'56# ·" 1.5 884:29! ' ' 640'38'32"W C5 368.59 2500.00 8'26'51" LB 167.64 $21'i55'qO"W C6 438.49 . ,4000.00 8~,16~1" L7 130.56 $71'25'49'W C7 858.40 1200.00 40'53',24~ LB 134.68 $18'34'11 'E ' C8 856.40 ~2b~JO0 40'53'24' L9 101.80 $16'42'47"W C9 501.22 1600.00 1~;56'55' L11 545.80 N66~QS!O3'W Cl 1 189.48 630.00 17'13'56' L12 552.40 S73'01'33"W _._C12 730.05 1200.00 34'51'27' ' ' L13 742.19 NST'OS'O3"W ! C13 202.68 1200.00 9'40'36' L14 203.69 NE4'O1'58~V I L15 160.53 N38~35'53"W ! L16 297,87 N21'21'57'W I L17 1287.57 N56' 13'23"W I L18 50. ~00 N3,T48'37'E I Llg 126.59 S87'01'26"E; ~ L20 3161.86 N§8'58'51 'E L2.1 754,15 N16'37'49"W 1.22 3609.89 N73'22'11"£ [-31 225.00 $16'37'49"E L35 34.97 ....... N16'58'lS'W L40 2.8_3:00 N73'22"11 'E L4! .... 283.00 S18-37'49~E L42 283.00 S73'22'11 'W L43 283.00 N16'37'49"W Kn zcm CITY OF TEMECUIA ~L'~A~ ~.e~,~,on,~l'=~ I~TO THE CITY OF TEEECUI.A AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM COUNI'~ SERVICE AREAS 143 & 158 AND DETACHMENT FROM~ ' .~1 U~ve~,;t~ ~.. m.~,~,, cA 9~t. 90g ,M¢.~o~ THE R~ERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO 2000-10-1, PA o0-0021 SCAL~: N.TJS. DATE: 01/08/01 DRAI{~N ~Y: STAFF CHECKED By:PAN W.O.: S?R-I , LIN~' TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 1016.04 S22'57'33"E 1.2 238.79 S22',57'33"E L3 55,54 S22'57'33'E L4 1514.00 S49'23'23"E 1.5 884:29 S40'38'32"W LB 167.64 L7 130.56 S71'25'49'W LB 134.68 618'34'11'E L9 101.80 $16'42'47"W LIO 719.17 N72':~ I'5~ ,"IN L1 545.80 N66~OS!O3'W L12 552.40 S73'01'33"W L13 742.19 NB6'OS'O3"W L14 203.69 N84'01 '58~/ L15 160.53 N38~35'53"W L16 297,87 N21'21 '57'W L17 1287.57 N56' 13'23"W L18 50. :00 N3,T48'37'E L19 126.59 S8T01 '26"E L20 3161.86 N§8'58'51 L2.1 754,15 N16'37'49"W 1.22 3609.89 N73'22'11"£ L30 180.00 N7,3'~-' 11"E [-31 225.00 $16'37'49"E L32 180.00 973'22'1 l"W L33 211.17 673'22'11'W L34 66.83 S63'23'04'W L35 34.97 N16'SB'lS'W L36 295.33 N73'2~°11 #E L40 2.8_3:00 N73'22"11 'E L41 283.00 S18'37'49~E L42 283.00 S73'22'11 'W L43 283.00 N16'37'49"W CURVE, TAi~I"E" CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA Cl 922.60 2000,00 , 26'25'50" C2 328.24 1000.00 15'41 '32" C3 864.18 1000,00 49'30'49" C4 615.80 1000.00 35'16'56# C5 368.59 2500.00 8'26'51" C6 438.49 . ,4000.00 6~,16~1" C7 858.40 1200.00 40'53',24~ C8 856.40 ~200.00 4{3'53'24' C9 501.22 1600.00 17'56'55' cio 1 o.o8 lq,o9.0o 6'=18'25" (311 189.48 530.00 17'13'56' C12 730,05 1200.00 34'51 '27' Cl 3 202.68 1200,00 9'40'38' EXHIBIT B - 2001/2002 COLLECTION ROLL Parcel identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be the parcel as shown on the County Assessor's map for the year in which this report is prepared. A listing of parcels within this District, along with the charges, has been submitted to the City Clerk and, by reference, is made part of this report. ITEM 7 APPROVAL,/~ CITY A'I-rORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC,E.~.:~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Herman Parker, Director of Community Services February 13, 2001 Extension of a Special Tax for Recreational and Human Services Programs and the Operation, Maintenance and Servicing of Public Parks and Recreational Facilities, Median Landscaping, and Arterial Street Lights and Traffic Signals to the Vail Ranch Annexation Area PREPARED BY: ,_,~' Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 01- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX TO FINANCE THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, RECREATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN THE TERRITORY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-1 (VAIL RANCH) DISCUSSION: In November 1999, a special election was held to determine if the residents in the Vail Ranch community were in favor of annexing to the City of Temecula. The registered voters were also asked to vote on the imposition of the City's Special Tax to finance park and recreation facilities and activities, arterial street lighting, traffic signals and median maintenance. The annexation and the extension of the Special Tax were passed by over a 90% majority of the registered voters in Vail Ranch. The City's registered voters originally approved the City of Temecula's Special Tax as Measure C on March 4, 1997. The extension of the tax to the newly annexed Vail Ranch will ensure continued quality programs and maintenance throughout the City and a fair apportionment of the costs for service to all property owners. R:\RUSEP\vail ranch extension of spec tax.2001CC.doc The Parks/Street Lighting Services special tax is levied in the same manner, at the same time as the TCSD Rates and Charges, and collected on the annual property tax bills. The maximum annual tax has been established at $74.44 per single-family residential dwelling unit; $55.84 per multi-family residential dwelling unit, $148.88 per acre of vacant property in a residential zone, $297.76 per acre of vacant property in a non-residential zone, $446.64 per acre of non-residential improved property, $148.88 per acre of golf course property, and $37.22 per acre for agricultural uses. The extension of the Special Tax at its maximum annual rates will ensure that the Vail Ranch annexation area's rates will be consistent with the rest of the City. Since the Special Tax was passed in 1997, the City Council has consistently reduced the rate each year. For the current fiscal year 2000/01, the single-family rate is $63.44. Approval of the extension of the Special Tax does not impose any rates on the Vail Ranch properties at this time. The rates will be set and imposed for Vail Ranch at the same time and in same manner as the rest of the City. Historically, the City Council considers and sets the Special Tax in June of each year. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the extension of the Special Tax to the Vail Ranch area. The Special Tax levy, which will be imposed at a later date, will be used to supplement the Citywide Parks/Lighting Services budget. ATrACHMENTS: Ordinance to Extend the Special Tax to the Vail Ranch Annexation Area R:\RUSEP\vail ranch extension of spec tax.2001CC.doc ORDINANCE NO. 01-.~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX TO FINANCE THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, RECREATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN THE TERRITORY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS LAFCO NO. 2000-10-1 (VAIL RANCH) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings: A. By Ordinance No. 99-11, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the levy of a special tax to finance the operation, maintenance and servicing of public parks and recreational facilities, recreational and community services programs, median landscaping, arterial street lights and traffic signals within the territory planned to be annexed to the City as part of the reorganization designated as LAFCO No. 98-14-1 (the "Redhawk and Vail Ranch Reorganization"). The territory involved in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Reorganization was comprised of the Redhawk specific plan area (the "Redhawk Community") and the Vail Ranch specific plan area (the "Vail Ranch Community"). B. In the November 2, 1999 consolidated election, the levy of the special tax was submitted to the registered voters of the Vail Ranch Community as Measure M. Measure M received approximately 90% approval from the Vail Ranch voters, who were the only voters to whom Measure M was submitted. This 90% approval far exceeded the two-thirds approval required under Articles ×Ilia and XIIIC of the California Constitution. The levy of the special tax was separately submitted as Measure O to the registered voters of the Redhawk Community, who did not approve the tax by the necessary two-thirds vote. C. Subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 99-11 and the approval of Measure M by the Vail Ranch electorate, the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Reorganization was not completed. However, the annexation of the Vail Ranch Community to the City is now planned as part of the reorganization designated as LAFCO No. 2000-10-1 (the "Vail Ranch Reorganization"). D. By this ordinance, the City Council of the City of Temecula intends to implement the special tax previously approved by the voters of Vail Ranch through their approval of Measure M This ordinance does not increase the rate of the previously approved tax beyond the level approved by Ordinance No. 99-11 and Measure M, nor does it revise the taxation methodology so as to result in an increased amount being levied on any parcel. E. As part of the Vail Ranch Reorganization, the Vail Ranch Community will be detached from Riverside County Service Area No. 143 ("CSA 143"). Upon detachment, the Community will no longer be subject to taxes and charges levied by CSA 143 for the provision of park and recreation services, median/slope maintenance, and street lighting. The taxes and charges currently levied by CSA 143 are of a higher rate than those proposed to be charged by the City, pureuant to this Ordinance, and by the Temecula Community Services District, by its Resolution No. TCSD 2001- __ Therefore, a result of the reorganization will be that property owners in the Vail Ranch Community will experience a decrease in the special taxes and rates and charges that burden their property. F. On February 13, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed extension of the special tax to the Vail Ranch Community. A notice of the prep0sed adoption of the special tax and the history of the voter approval of Measure M was mailed to all ownere of property within the Vail Ranch Community. At the public hearing, all orei and wdtten objections, protests and comments by any interested person concerning the proposed rates and charges were heard and considered. Section 2. Pursuant to the authority of Article Xl, Section 7 of the California Constitution, Government Code Section 37100.5, and other applicable law, there is hereby levied and assessed a special tax by the City of Temecula on each parcel of property in the territory annexed to the City of Temecula as part of the reorganization designated as LAFCO No. 2000-10- 1 (Vail Ranch) for each fiscal year, commencing with fiscal year 2001-2002. Section 3. The maximum amount of said special tax for each fiscal year shall be $74.44 per single-family residential dwelling unit, $55.84 per multi-family residential dwelling unit, $148.88 per acre of vacant property in a residential zone, $297.76 per acre of vacant preperty in a non-residential zone, $446.64 per acre of non-residential improved property, $148.88 per acre of golf course property and $37.22 per acre for agricultural uses. Section 4. The special tax imposed by this ordinance shall be collected in the same manner, on the same dates, and shall be subject to the same penalties and interest as other charges and taxes fixed and collected by the County of Riverside on behalf of the City of Temecula. Said special tax, together with all penalties and interest thereon, shall constitute a lien upon the parcel upon which it is levied until it has been paid, and said special tax, together with all penalties and interest thereon, shall, until paid, constitute a personal obligation to the City of Temecula by the persons who own the parcel on the date the tax is due. Section 5. The revenue raised by the special tax imposed by this ordinance shall be placed in a special fund to be used only for the purposes of operating, maintaining, and servicing public parks and recreational facilities, recreational and community services programs, median landscaping, arterial street lights and traffic signals throughout the City of Temecula and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith. Section 6. The City Council, by three (3) affirmative votes, is empowered to establish the amounts of the special tax levy annually each fiscal year, in amounts not to exceed the maximum amounts specified in Section 3 of this ordinance, as is required to provide an adequate level of service in accordance with the purposes set forth in this ordinance. Section 7. The City Council shall be empowered to amend this ordinance by three (3) affirmative votes of the members thereof for the purposes of carrying out the general purposes of this ordinance in order to conform to state law that permits the County Tax Collector, or other proper official, to collect a special tax such as is levied by this ordinance in conjunction with County taxes or in order to assign duties pursuant to the ordinance to other officers. Section 8. No section of this ordinance shall be construed to permit, and the City Council is expressly prohibited from, increasing the amounts of the special tax imposed by this ordinance beyond the maximum amounts set forth in this ordinance. Section 9. A property owner subject to the special tax may appeal the amount of the special tax to be levied on such property owner's property pursuant to standards and procedures established by resolution of the City Council. · Section 10. If a property owner subject to the special tax believes that payment of the special tax dudng a specific fiscal year would create a hardship for that property owner during that fiscal year, such property owners may appeal the levy by filing a hardship appeal pursuant to standards and procedures established by resolution of the City Council. Section 11. The special tax imposed by this ordinance shall not be imposed upon a federal or state governmental agency or another local governmental agency or upon any parcel of property that is exempt from the special tax imposed by this ordinance pursuant to any provision of the Constitution or any paramount law. Section 12. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any other provision or applications, and to this end the previsions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. The City Council does hereby declare that they would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, parts or portions thereof, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. · Section 13. This ordinance, or any provisions thereof other than those provisions, if any, which provide for modification by the City Council of the City of Temecula, may only be amended or repealed by approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the voters voting on the ordinance or provisions thereof at any initiative or referendum election. Section 14. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the levy and collection of these taxes is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and Section 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the rates and charges are necessary to maintain existing improvements within the City. Section 15. Pursuant to Section 36937 of the California Government Code, this Ordinance shall take effect immediately. Section 15. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 13th day of February, 2001. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT JANUARY 23, 2001 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:54 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Comerchero presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of January 9, 2001. 2 Ratification of Election Results - Tract Map No. 23513 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 01-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON JANUARY 18, 2001 DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW Ratification of Election Results - Tract Map No. 29036 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 3 Minutes.csd\012301 1 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 01-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION HELD ON JANUARY '18, 2001 DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW (Director Comerchero abstained with regard to this item.) 4 A,qreement for Bevera,qe Services RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve an agreement between the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Public Enterprise Group to develop and negotiate a soft drink beverage agreement for soft drink sales at City facilities. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. The motion was seconded by Director Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. DISTRICT BUSINESS 5 City of Temecula Wall of Honor RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the recommended honoree for placement on the Wall of Honor. Deputy Director of Community Services Ruse presented the staff report (of record). MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve the recommendation. The motion was seconded by President Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No comments. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. Minutes.csd\012301 2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:57 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 13, 2001, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Jeffrey E. Stone, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes.csd~012301 3 ITEM 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ~-n CITY DIR. OF FINANCE ~ TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Agency Directors Shawn Nelson, Executive Director February 13, 2001 Review and Approval of the 2000-01 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments PREPARED BY: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance Iv~- Tim McDermott, Assistant FinanceI~irector ~ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET DISCUSSION: Each year a mid-year review is conducted of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (RDA) operating budget. The purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the Agency maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. Finance Department staff has performed an analysis of revenues. Additionally, Agency and City staff has reviewed the operating budgets and has identified any material adjustments required. The mid-year budget review includes the Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund, the Capital Projects/Redevelopment Fund, and the Debt Service Fund. Activity in each fund is presented in accordance with the following schedules: Summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances: Presents a summary of prior year and FY 2000-01 year-to-date actual activity, as well as the FY 2000-01 current and proposed budget amounts. Also included is a schedule of beginning and estimated ending fund balances based upon the proposed budget activity. Revenue Detail: Presents detail of prior year and FY 2000-01 year-to-date revenues, as well as the FY 2000-01 current and revised projected revenues. The attached schedules provide complete detail of the proposed revenue adjustments. The projected RDA revenues reflect a 91,169,500 net increase over the original budget estimate. A 9909,000 increase in gross property tax increment is projected, due to assessed valuation growth in the project area. The increase in tax increment revenue will be partially offset by an increase in the amount paid out under passthrough agreements. The net impact to the Agency will be an 9182,000 increase in tax increment to the Iow and moderate income housing set aside, and a 990,000 increase in the net increment available to the Redevelopment Fund. Other revenue increases are projected as detailed on the attached schedules, which will provide 996,500 in additional revenues to the Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund, and 9164,000 to the Redevelopment Fund. No increase is proposed in Agency operating expenditures. An $886,000 increase in expenditures is reflected in the Debt Service Fund for amounts owed under passthrough agreements as a result of the corresponding increase in gross property tax increment revenue as discussed above. AUTHORIZED POSITIONS No changes are proposed to the Schedule of Authorized Positions. FISCAL IMPACT: The total proposed mid-year adjustments as reflected in the attached schedules will result in a 9278,500 increase in available resources to the Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund, and an increase of 9254,000 to the Redevelopment Fund. Attachments: Resolution No. RDA 2001- 2000-01 Temeeula Redevelopment Agency Mid-Year Budget 2 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, each year a mid-year review is conducted of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency (RDA} operating budget. WHEREAS, the purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of revenues and expenditures to ensure that the RDA maintains a prudent and healthy fiscal position. WHEREAS, the mid-year review has been completed and the recommended adjustments are reflected in the attached schedules. The Board of Directors does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the Fiscal Year 2000-01 RDA operating budget is amended in accordance with the attached schedules. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency this 13th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Chairperson Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) ~, Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, Secretary of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. RDA 2001-_ was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13'h day of February, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk/Agency Secretary 2000-01 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MID-YEAR BUDGET TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUMMARY OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 2000-01 MID-YEAR OPERATING BUDGET 00-01 00-01 00-01 Proposed % 99-00 YTD Current Proposed Increase Increase Actual ~ 12/31/00 Budget Bud~let (Decrease) (Decrease) Total Revenues* 7,828,416 394,956 8,314,900 9~484~400 1,169,500 14.1% Total Non-tiP Expenditures by Fund*: Low/Moderate Income Housing 410,619 186,750 810,780 810,780 Redevelopment 563,167 203,316 1,251,829 1,251,829 Debt Service 5,814,047 403~222 6~646~550 7,532,550 886,000 13.3% Total Expenditures 6~787,833 793,288 8,709,159 9,595,159 886,000 10.2% Excess of Revenues Over(Under) Expenditures Other Financing Sources: Deferred Passthrough/Interest Advances from Other Funds Excess of Revenues and Other Financing Sources Over (Under) Expenditures 1,040,583 (398,332) (394,259) (110,759) 283,500 1,201,725 1,582,000 1,831,000 249,000 75,749 37,875 75,750 75,750 2,318,057 (360,457) 1,263,491 1~795r991 532,500 * Operating transfer between Debt Service and Redevelopment funds is not reflected REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUE DETAIL FY 2000-01 MIDYEAR BUDGET ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 165 LOW/MOD HOUSING FUND ACTUALS Y'rD (~12J31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4015 .Tax Increment 1,415,019 1,583,000 1,765,000 182,000 11.5% 4060 Miscellaneous 11,032 7,25C 2,700 268.5% 7,200 4,500 166.7% 4065 .Investment Interest 226,277 137,15~ 180,000 76.2% 280,000 100,000 55.6% 4066 -Loan interest 3,285 11C I 4075 -Rental Income 15,675 1,875 10,000 18.8% 2,000 (8,000) -80.0~ ' 4077 -Forgivable Loan Repayment 45,691 TOTAL LOW/MOD HOUSING FUND 1T716T979 146~393 117751700 8.2% 2TO54r200 278,500 15.70~ ACCT FY 99.00 FY 00.01 FY 00.01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 280 REDEVELOPMENT FUND ACTUALS YTD ~12J'31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4060 -Miscellaneous 35 4065 -Investment Interest 60,692 107,261 40,000 268.2% 140,000 100,000 250.0'~ 4066 -Loan Interest 16,21C 8,076 15,200 53.1% 15,200 4072 -Saleof Property -1,331 4075 -Rental income 101,366 64,393 64,000 64,000 4076 -Reimbursements 11,035 4090 -Operating Transfers In 1,105,40C 270,000 955,000 28.3% 955,000 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND 1r293r407 449r730 1~010~200 44.5% 1~174r200 164r000 16.2°~ ACCT FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 00-01 YTD % FY 00-01 CHANGE % NO 380 DEBT SERVICE FUND ACTUALS YTD (~12/31/00 ORIG EST OF BDGT REVISED EST IN EST CHANGE 4015 -Tax Increment 5,660,075 6,334,000 7,061,000 727,000 11.5°,{ 4065 -Investment Interest 263,35; 30,959 150,000 20.6% 150,000 4092 -Deferred Passthrough 1,201,725 1,582,000 1,831,000 249,000 15.7°~ 4093 -Advances from Other Funds 75,74~c 37,874 75,750 50.0% 75,750 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 7~200~904 68~833 8,141~750 0.8% 9~117,750 976,000 12.0°,{ Ol midyear-REV 02/06/2001 ITEM 20 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ,.~,,~_____ CITY A]-FORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE.~._ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council ~u~Susan W. Jones ',-(;ity Clerk/Director of Support Services February 13, 2001 Selection of City Council Committee Assignments RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as liaison to each of the City Commissions and Committees and to the Pechanga Tribal Council: · Community Services Commission · Old Town Local Review Board Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee · Planning Commission · Public/Traffic Safety Commission · Pechanga Tribal Council Liaison 2. Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following external committees: · City of Murrieta Liaison (2 Members) · County General Plan Update Committee- RCIP · French Valley Airport Committee (2 Members) · League of California Congress - Voting Delegates (Member and Alternate) · Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Committee · Murrieta Creek Advisory Board (Member and Alternate ) · National League of Cities Annual Congress - 2001 Voting Delegate (Member and Alternate) · Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency · Riverside County Transportation Commission (Member and Alternate) · Riverside Transit Agency Representative (Member and Alternate) · Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors · Temecula/Murrieta Transportation/Traffic Committee (2 Members) · Trails Master Plan Development Committee · WRCOG Representative · Senior Center Expansion Design Committee (Member and Alternate) (Proposed Deletion) Committee Assignments 2001 3. Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following Advisory Committees: · Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Committee · Economic Development/Old Town Steering Committee · Finance Committee · Joint City Council/Temecula Valley Unified School District Committee · Library Task Force · Old Town Temecula Community Theater Ad Hoc Committee/Theater Advisory Committee · Public Works/Facilities Committee Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following Council Subcommittees: · City's General Plan Update Committee (This committee will no longer be needed upon the formation of the General Plan Steering Committee.) · Children's Museum Ad Hoc Subcommittee · Development Overlay Subcommittee (Proposed Deletion) · Electrical NeedsAd Hoc Subcommittee · Hotel Conference Center Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee (Proposed Deletion) · Lennar Project Subcommittee · Roripaugh Ranch Annexation Ad Hoc Subcommittee · SAF-T-NET Subcommittee (one Councilmember and one Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner) (Proposed Deletion) · Sports Park Ad Hoc Subcommittee · Via Cordoba Subcommittee (Proposed Deletion) · Wall of Honor Ad Hoc Subcommittee · Water Park Subcommittee · Wolf Creek Development Agreement Council Ad Hoc Committee (Proposed Deletion) · Villages of Old Town Ad Hoc Committee (Proposed Addition) BACKGROUND: The City Council has established the policy of appointing one of its members to serve as liaison to each of the City commissions and committees. This policy also included appointing councilmembers to serve as the Council's representatives to external organizations and on a number of Council ad-hoc sub-committees. These members will serve through calendar year 2001. Several committees on your list may no longer be necessary and are printed in italics for your consideration. Aisc for your consideration, is the addition of a Villages of Old Town Subcommittee. Attached for your convenience is a list of the Committee Assignments for 2000. ATTACHMENTS: 2000 Committee Assignments List Committee Assignments 2001 TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL 2000 Committee Assiqnments Commission Liaison (One Member) Community Services Commission Old Town Local Review Board Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee Planning Commission Public/Traffic Safety Commission Pechanga Tribal Council Liaison Representative Assignments (External Organizations) City of Murrieta Liaison County General Plan Update Committee - RCIP (attend meetings) French Valley Airport Committee League of Calif Congress - Voting Delegates Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Committee (attend meetings) Murrieta Creek Advisory Board National League of Cities Annual Congress - 2000 Voting Delegate Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside Transit Agency Representative Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors Temecula/Murrieta Transportation/Traffic Committee Trails Master Plan Development Committee WRCOG Representative Senior Center Expansion Design Committee Advisory Committees (Two Members) Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Committee Economic Development/Old Town Steering Committee * Finance Committee * Joint City Council/TVUSD Committee * Library Task Fome Old Town Temecula Community Theater Ad Hoc Committee/Theater Advisory Committee Public Works/Facilities Committee * * These meetings must be noticed at least 72 hours in advance. Council Subcommittees City's General Plan Update Committee Children's Museum Ad Hoc Subcommittee Development Overlay Subcommittee (Council Meeting 9/26/00) Electrical Needs Ad Hoc Subcommittee Hotel Conference Center Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee Lennar Project Subcommittee (Council Meeting 8/8/00) Roripaugh Ranch Annexation Ad Hoc Subcommittee SAF-T NET Subcommittee (also Connerton) Sports Park Ad Hoc Subcommittee Via Cordoba Subcommittee (also Hughes & Domenoe) Wall of Honor Ad Hoc Subcommittee Committee Assignments 2001 Comerchere Pratt Roberts Naggar Roberts Roberts Stone, Comerchero Comerchero Naggar, Pratt Stone, (Alternate Comemhero) Naggar Pratt, (Alternate Stone) Stone, (Alternate Comechero) Naggar Roberts, (Alternate Comerchero) Comerchero, (Alternate Pratt) Roberts Naggar, Pratt Naggar Stone Roberts, (Alternate Stone) Naggar, Stone Roberts, Comerchero Naggar, Stone Roberts, Naggar Roberts, Stone Comerchero, Pratt Naggar, Stone Comemhero, Naggar Comerchero, Roberts Comerchero, Naggar Comemhero, Naggar Stone, Roberts Roberts, Pratt Comerchero, Roberts Stone Stone, Comemhero Stone, Comerchero Comerchero, Stone Water Park Subcommittee (Council Meeting 8/8/00) Naggar, Comerchero Wolf Creek Development Agreement Council Ad Hoc Committee Naggar, Pratt Committee Assignments 2001 ITEM 21 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City ManagedCity Council Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services February 13, 2001 City Council Meeting Adjournment Time RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff whether to amend Ordinance No. 95-07, regarding the time of adjournment for City Council Meetings. It has been requested by Councilman Stone to revisit the adjournment time for City Council Meetings. Staff suggests that if Ordinance No. 95-07, Section 1, Chapter 2.04.020- time and place of meetings - were amended, that changes to adjournment time be determined by Resolution. Councilman Stone suggests that at 10:00 P.M., the Mayor examines the agenda and discusses which items can be continued to the next scheduled City Council Meeting. The maximum time of adjournment suggested is 11:00 P.M. Agenda Reports/Adjournment Time 1 ITEM 22 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE,.,~_____ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2001 Additional Police Officers - Stop Light Abuse Program (SLAP) PREPARED BY: Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: Abuse Program. That the City Council provide direction regarding the Stop Light BACKGROUND: In October 2000, the City Council requested that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review options available for intersection enforcement and recommended the creation of a Stop Light Abuse Program (SLAP) to reduce the number of red light violations occurring at intersections in Temecula. On November 16, 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission reviewed and discussed options to reduce red light violations. There were three primary suggestions discussed to address the violations. Photo Enforcement Additional Officers to target enforcement Support or sponsorship of Legislation to increase penalties 1. Photo Enforcement Last year the Public Traffic Safety Commission reviewed and supported the idea of photo enforcement at intersections. Many questions and concerns were raised at the presentation provided by the photo enforcement system vendor that were left unanswered. There are many types of systems, and various methods to administer the program. Presently only one other City in Riverside County (the City of Indian Wells) has a photo enforcement system at one location only. The systems are very expensive and the cities that have tried them have had numerous problems with their use. The installation costs can be as much as $80,000 per intersection, which does not include staffing and administrative costs. In June 2000, the City Council appropriated $ 35,000 to hire an independent consultant to evaluate available photo enforcement systems and to identify the successes and failures of other city's programs. The Traffic Division is seeking consultants to evaluate various photo enforcement technologies, the associated costs, benefits and drawbacks. A presentation will be made to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission upon completion of the study. The study results will be available for consideration in the upcoming budget process. I R:\agdrpt\2001\0213\neighborhoodenforcement\ajp 2. Additional Officers There was strong Commission support for adding additional officers to target intersection enfomement. Chairman Connerton suggested that as many as nine (9) officers would be needed to properly implement intersection enforcement, and he also suggested that the City should consider borrowing officers from other jurisdictions to immediately start the enforcement rather than waiting for the next fiscal budget cycle. The consensus of the Commission was that the Police Department should establish a plan that includes determining the number of additional police officers needed to accomplish the City Council's goals. The Commission also acknowledged that the Safer Avenues For Temecula Neighborhoods (SAF-T NET) Program was providing an effective means of mitigating vehicular speeds on residential streets and they also recommended that the City Council approve funding for additional police officers for that program as well. Staff recommends that the City Council direct the Police Department to thoroughly review the needs of the Department and include the recommendation in the budget process. 3. Legislative Support The Public/Traffic Safety Commission has recommended that the City Council direct staff to investigate the possibility of initiating ~, legislation to increase fines for speeding and red light violations. If the City Council approves the Commission recommendation, this process is expected to be lengthy and extensive and will require cooperation and coordination with State Legislative officials. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. ATTACHMENT: Request For Proposal - Evaluation of Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems 2 R:~agdrpt\2001\0213\neighborhoodenforcement\ajp CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 097 EVALUATION OF RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS PROJECT NO. PW01-04 INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula, Public Works Department, hereinafter referred to as the City, is inviting proposals from qualified consulting firms to provide a comprehensive evaluation of available "red light" photo enforcement systems. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The comprehensive study report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: · Identification of all available "red light" photo enforcement systems · Identification of implementation costs for each system · Identification of maintenance and operational costs and other associated costs Identification of personnel needs and staff commitments by the City of Temecula · Preparation of a cost/benefit analysis for each system identified · Identification of successes/failures of jurisdictions that have used photo enforcement systems · Evaluation of changes in the collision rate and safety enhancements experienced by jurisdictions that have used photo enforcement systems · Evaluation of social and public perception experienced by jurisdictions that have used photo enforcement systems · A maximum of two (2) presentations to City committees GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The consultant shall provide the following: a. A detailed list of the items of work to be performed. b. A description of the consulting firm, organization structure, location of principal offices, number of professional personnel, and other pertinent information, including the names and experience of all staff members who will work on the project. c. Related project experience and client references. RFP No. 097 Evaluation of Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems Project No. PW01-04 10£4 The name of the principal or project manager in the firm who will serve as Project Engineer and have direct and continued responsibility for the project. This person will be the City Staff contact on all matters dealing with the project and will handle the day- to-day activities through to completion. e. The names of any sub-consultants or sub-contractors to be utilized, along with an experience and project resume. The proposed methodology and approach, including personnel qualification and type of equipment available. The project approach shall include a task analysis, along with the personnel assigned to each task and the corresponding man-hours. g. Current billing rate schedule. h. Any exceptions, additions, or suggestions that will aid us in our selection process. 2. The proposal shall be signed by an authorized official of the consultant firm. 3. The proposal shall be valid for a minimum of ninety (90) days. The consultant is obligated to provide evidence of insurance liability and abide by the City's Risk Management procedures in accordance with Exhibit "A". The consultant will maintain required professional licenses and registration during the life of the Contract with the City. GENERALINFORMATION 1. The City reserves the right to reject any and all submittals. The terms and scope of the contract will be arrived at on the basis of professional negotiations between the City and the prospective consultant. If the City and prospective consultant fail to reach a contractual agreement, the City may renegotiate with any other finalist. Please refer any questions regarding the technical content of this RFP to Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic at (909) 694-6411. SELECTION CRITERIA The City plans to consider the consulting firm's experience with similar projects, the qualification and number of staff available for the assignment, the experience of sub-consultants and associates to be retained, and the firm's demonstrated ability to meet deadlines. A Selection Committee will review the proposals submitted and may request interviews from the top consulting firms. The Selection Committee will rank the top firms based on qualifications, presentations, and proposals. The City reserves the right to negotiate terms and scope of work with the highest ranked firm. If an agreement cannot be negotiated, the City reserves the right to renegotiate with any other finalist. RFP No. 097 Evaluation of Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems roject No. PW01-04 2 of 4 TIME SCHEDULES The prospective consultant shall indicate the total time frame proposed to complete the study. The time required to complete each task identified in the consultant's scope of work shall also be presented. The following is the City's tentative schedule for selection of the consultant and completing the comprehensive study report: 1. Issuance of RFP's 2. Deadline for filing RFP: 3. Staff review of proposals: 4. Interview of top consultants: (If deemed necessary) 5. Consultant selection and Notice to Proceed 6. Completion of the Comprehensive Evaluation February 8, 2001 February 26, 2001 February 28, 2001 Mamh 5-9, 2001 March 12, 2001 April 13, 2001 Four copies of the Proposal must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the filing deadline at: City Clerk's Office City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Please clearly mark the envelope as follows: "RFP #097- Public Works Department - Evaluation of Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems Attachment: Exhibit "A" Insurance Requirements RFP No. 097 Evaluation of Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems Project No. PW01-04 3 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall maintain in full force, during the term of the service contract, limits of insurance, no less than: General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's Compensation as required by the labor code of the State of California and Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 4. Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence. It is the consultant's responsibility to notify the City if there are any changes in insurance provisions that would impact the above requirements. Insurance carrier(s) shall be admitted to do business in the State of California and shall have a Best rating of no less than A:VII. Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance naming the City as additional and provide an insurance endorsement. RFP No. 097 Evaluation of Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems Project No. PW01-04 4 of 4 ITEM 23 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Mayor and Members of the City Council City Manager Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager~,y-~ February 13, 2001 Electric Power Emergency Building Moratorium - Request from Councilmember Pratt RECOMMENDATION: Councilmember Pratt has requested that this item be considered by the City Council. Attached is a letter from Councilmember Pratt outlining this request. FISCAL IMPACT: point. Fiscal Impact would be significant, but has not been quantified at this R:iOGRADYJ[AGENDA REPORT- ELECTRIC POWER MORATORIUM, COUNClI MEMBER PRATT, FEB. 13, 2001 4DOC 2/6/01 Feb 05 01 02:llp Sam Pratt, Councilman (809l 308-1288 CaRfomia R~rmio~t: (/~i1Eagin~ No. 7697 Stng'amml Engineer N(x 650 ALBERT S. PRATT "~ince 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove Temocula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt~nctimes.nct) (909) 699-8689 Monday, February 05, 2001 Shawn Nelson City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Request for Agenda Item Council Meeting, February 13, 2001 - Electric Power Emergency Building Moratorium Dear Shawa: I am requesting that an agenda item be placed on tho Council Agenda, February 13, 2001, for discussion by tho Council to adopt an emergency ordinenco establ/~hing a moratorium (Government Code 65858) on issamace of building permits daring the present electric power emergency ontil the current energy crisis is resolved and citizens now living in Tomecula can be guaranteed a continuous source of electrical energy without rolling blackouts. This request is timely, very appropriate and reasonable. My professional career in EHV (Extreme High Voltage) electric power tr~mission and generation began in 1956 and ended with my retirement as night construction superintendent for the Consumers Power Company, Midland Michigan Nuclear Power Generation Plant in 1986, a period of 30 years. Environmentalists converted the Midland Nuclear Power C_~nerafion Project to gas when 95% complete due to intervention. This period marked the end of major electrical power plan construction in the Ignited States. At this time, it was forecast that there would be a power generation shortage in less than 20 years - a prophecy that we are regretfully now experiencing. At this time, the amount of electric power generation available in tho United States is finite and only redistribution of existing power generation is possible, and that only because of a nationwide EHV powar grid. Feb OS O1 02:llp Sam Pratt, Councilman (909) 308-1289 p.2 ALFIERT S. PRATT "Since 1919" "40470 Brkton Cove Temeeula, CA 92591 (Email: samprattC~ncfmes.net) (909) 699-8689 Ca~fomia Regiatrafi~: Civil Engineer No. 7697 Stmctmal Engineer iqo. 650 The population continued to increase from the late 1980's without aa increase in EHV power plait construction resulting in the ua6on wide electric power crisis - with California tho major powerless victim At this stage in Temecula's development, we have adequate local services for all of our citizens. Temecula's houaing demand is by choice not to fill the needs of tho homeless. With the limited electrical energy available, aad ~ increasingly higher prices with no price cap in sight, and the prospect of construction of new electrical power generation plants az absolute minimum of 5 years with an average of 10 years in the future, the present citizens of Temecula face increasing reductions'in available electric power aad serious discomfort in the summer months with maximum air-conditioning power demands. It is reasonable and feasible that a moratorium on the issu~co of building permits be adopted by our Council ~mtil the current energy crisis is resolved, and citizens now living in Temecula be guaranteed a continuous source of affordable electrical energy. SamPraR CC: Tho Californian The Press Enteq~fise