Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
012610 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 69.4-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 26, 2010 - 7:00 PM 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. 5:30 P:M Closed Session;of the City Council/Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant, to Government Code Section: 1), "' Conference with real property, negotiators pursuant .to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the. potential sale 'of: the'real property.,, located at"28640 Pujol Street, Temecula,, California (APN Nos: ;922-053-020 and-021):,, owned by the Redevelopment Agency:,of, the City of, "Temecula: ;,The parties to. the. 'negotiations for the potential sale of the property,are the. Redevelopment, Agency, of the City of Temecula, City; of Temecula,, and R.C." Hobbs .Co,. Negotiators for. the Agency, and City are Bob;; ` Johnson, Assistant, "City Manager; .Patrick Richardson,' 'Director of Planning, ;,and Redevelopment; ,. and Luke-, Watson, Management Analyst. Under negotiations "are", the, price and terms ,of the potential. sale of the real property., 2) Conference with real "property negotiators pursuant to Government Code, Section. 54956.8 regarding one parcel..` of ;;real " jproperty : owned"by John and ^ ;Juanita Firestone "and -their affiliates consisting"" of' approximately 37.58_ acres , (APN`Nos. 940-032-005 to-007)',generally located.southwesterly of the extensions of Pujol Street and Temecula Parkway. The parties to„the negotiations for the" purchase of �. the .property are John "° and Juanita Firestone and ;-the City : of Temecula. .Negotiators for the City" of Terriecula.' are Shawn Nelson, :City .:Manager;, Bob. Johnson, Assistant City Manager;,and! Patrick" Richardson;"Director.of",,Planning and Redevelopment. Under negotiation are,price :and the terms of the purchase of the property. Public Information concerning existing litigation, between the City and".various parties may be,acquired by reviewing the public,ocuments held by,the City Clerk., Next in Order: Ordinance: 10-04 Resolution: 10-06 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Susan Miyamoto J Invocation: Pastor Dave Hadden of House of Praise Flag Salute: Council Member Naggar ROLL CALL: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Citv Service Awards: • Old Town Local Review Board Member Peg Moore— 10 Years • Public/Traffic Safety Commission Member Tomi Arbogast — 5 Years 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 minute (5) time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance 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 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of January 12, 2010. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Community Development Block Grant Application Proposals for Fiscal Year 2010-11 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Finance Committee funding recommendations for fiscal year 2010-11; 4.2 Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub -Recipient Agreements for 2010-11 funding recipients and reprogram CDBG funds in accordance with the budget resolution for general administration of the fiscal year 2010-11 CDBG Funds; 4.3 Authorize the City to apply for separate CDBG funding allocated to the Third District Supervisors office to be used for the construction of the Old Town Gymnasium. 5 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Citvwide Storm Drain Improvements. Rancho California Road -at Vincent Moraaa Drive — Proiect No. PW09-09 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Storm Drain Improvements, Rancho California Road at Vincent Moraga Drive, Project No. PW09-09. 6 Approval of Chanae Order No. 1 to the Construction Contract for the Street Strioinq Proaram. FY 2009-2010 — Proiect No. PW09-04 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve Change Order No. 1 in the Construction Contract for the Street Striping Program for FY 2009-2010, Project No. PW09-04 to Pacific Striping, Inc. in the amount of $174,417.18. 7 Purchase of Eden Software Support and Maintenance RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the purchase of annual Financials and Payroll Software Support from Eden Systems, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2009/10 for the total amount of $36,013.61. 8 Aareement for Library Operations Services at the Temecula Public Library between the Citv of Temecula and the Countv of Riverside RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the two year Agreement for Library Operations Services at the Temecula Public Library between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside for an annual amount not to exceed $180,000. 9 Parkina Citation Bail Schedule Update RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CITY'S FEE SCHEDULE AS TO PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS 10 Old Town Police Department Storefront Lease Extension RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve a month to month lease extension for the Police Department Old Town Storefront property to include a monthly base rental rate of $2,205.53 a month and a variable common area maintenance (CAM) charge, with a total annual amount not to exceed $36,000. 4 11 Second Readina of Ordinance No. 10-01 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 3.40.040.B. OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST LODGING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FROM TWO PERCENT (2%) TO FOUR PERCENT (4%) OF ROOM RENT 12 Second Readina of Ordinance No. 10-02 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM 13 . Second Readina of Ordinance No. 10-03 0 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.01(D) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS ***--.:.:A.4A----.:--AA-:.--_ RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 10-01 Resolution: No. CSD 10-01 CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 your name for the record. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 14 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the action minutes of January 12, 2010. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 9, 2010, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 09-01 Resolution: No. RDA 09-12 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Washington, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 for the record. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 15 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the action minutes of January 12, 2010. RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT 16 Redevelopment Department Monthlv Report RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 9, 2010, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of 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. 17 Extension of Time application for the Temecula Reaional Hospital RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TERM OF CERTAIN LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS TO PERMIT THE BEGINNING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PRIOR TO JANUARY 22, 2011 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA09-0362) DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 18 Plannina Department Monthlv Report 19 City Council Travel/Conference Report - December 2009 20 Public Works Department Monthly Report 21 Police Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 9, 2010, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. 0 PRESENTATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 12, 2010 — 7:00 PM 6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council/Temecula Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section: 1) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the potential sale of the real property located at 28640 Pujol Street, Temecula, California (APN Nos. 922-053-020 and -021) owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula. The parties to the negotiations for the potential sale of the property are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula, City of Temecula, and R.C. Hobbs Co. Negotiators for the Agency and City are Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager; Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment; and Luke Watson, Management Analyst. Under negotiation are the price and terms of the potential sale of the real property. 2) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding one parcel of real property owned by John and Juanita Firestone and their affiliates consisting of approximately 37.58 acres (APN Nos. 940-032-005 to -007) generally located southwesterly of the extensions of Pujol Street and Temecula Parkway. The parties to the negotiations for the purchase of the property are John and Juanita Firestone and the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the City of Temecula are Shawn Nelson, City Manager; Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment. Under negotiation are price and the terms of the purchase of the property. 3) Conference with City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and City related entities based on existing facts and circumstances. With respect to such matter, the City Council will also meet pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to decide whether to initiate litigation. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. 1 At 6:00 P.M., Mayor Comerchero called the Closed Session meeting to order; Council Members Edwards and Washington were absent at that time but were in attendance of the Closed Session. The City Council meeting convened at 7:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Murrieta Youth Music Club Invocation: Pastor John Ruhlman from Life Church Flag Salute: Council Member Edwards ROLL CALL: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Mayor's Award for Outstanding Achievement - Chaparral High School Football Team and Linfield Christian High School for both winning CIF Championship for their respective divisions PUBLIC COMMENTS Donald Lambert, Murrieta - Medical marijuana Craig Puma, Temecula - Old Town Temecula Association Louise Raymond, Temecula - Redhawk Park Jan Smith, Temecula - Begin Again Career Transition Services CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of November 10, 2009; - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Comerchero and Council Member Roberts who abstained z 2.2 Approve the action minutes of December 8, 2009. - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Council Member Naggar who abstained 3 List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10-01 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 November 30, 2009 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2009. 5 Community Service Funding Program Grant for VNW Circle of Care (at the request of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee Members, Maryann Edwards and Mike Naggar) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the Community Service Funding Program grant recommendation to VNW Circle of Care in the amount of $5,000. 6 Agreement for Consulting Services with Hirsch & Associates, Inc. for the Butterfield Stage Road Extension Project, Project No. PW09-02 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve an Agreement for Consulting Services with Hirsch & Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $47,700 to complete the medians landscape and irrigation design plans for Butterfield Stage Road Extension, Project No. PW09- 02; 6.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Extra Work Authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $4,770, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount. 7 Agreement for funding the acquisition of open space property between Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority and the City of Temecula - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Appropriate $261,500 to the CIP Budget for Phase II of Open Space Land Acquisition of Francis Property from General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance in the amount of $217,000 and DIF Open Space Fund in the amount of $44,500; 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING THE ACQUISITION OF OPEN SPACE PROPERTY BETWEEN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA 8 Authorize the preparation of documents necessary to file an application with LAFCO for an expansion of the City's Sphere of Influence and the Annexation of certain uninhabited territory described as the Santa Margarita Area Annexation (No. 2) comprised of approximately 4,500 acres located southwest of the City - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED AS THE SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION (NO. 2) COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,500 ACRES LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF THE PRE-EXISTING CITY OF TEMECULA BOUNDARY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 15 AND NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO/RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOUNDARY TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX- HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2000 (LR09-0024) 9 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 09-08 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 09-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17.32 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS At 7:46 P.M. the City Council took a recess. At 7:51 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Redevelopment Agency. At 7:57 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING 12 Approval for Levying an Assessment for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 in connection with the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District (TVTBID) - RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Conduct a public hearing to consider protests regarding the levy of an assessment in conjunction with the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District; 12.2 Instruct the City Clerk to tabulate any written protests which might be received prior to the close of the public hearing regarding the formation of the proposed District; 12.3 If the City Clerk reports that there is not a majority protest received regarding this District, then adopt a resolution entitled: - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RESOLUTION NO. 10-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TVTBID) 12.4 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. ORDINANCE NO. 10-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 3.40.040.B. OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST LODGING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FROM TWO PERCENT (2%) TO FOUR PERCENT (4%) OF ROOM RENT Staff report was provided by Senior Debt Analyst Bilby. It was confirmed by City Clerk Jones that no written protests were filed. The public hearing was opened. Speaking in support of the proposed recommendation, Tom DeMott, General Manager of Embassy Suites and Board Member of the Temecula Valley Convention Visitors Bureau; and Jason Curl, General Manager of Temecula Creek Inn and Board Member of the Temecula Valley Convention Visitors Bureau, addressed the City Council. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read the ordinance by title only. 13 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Ordinance Amendment and Resolution to Adopt Revised TUMF Schedule (at the request of Council Member Washington) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Introduce and read by title only an Ordinance entitled: - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. ORDINANCE NO. 10-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM 13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Roberts made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. RESOLUTION NO. 10-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND UPDATED FEE SCHEDULE APPLICABLE UNDER THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM Director of Public Works Butler provided the staff report (as per agenda material). At this time, the public hearing was opened. In response to Council questions, Deputy Executive Director Taylor Berger, Western Riverside Council of Governments, addressed the Council. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read the ordinance by title only. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 14 Selection of 2010 City Council Committee Assignments RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as liaison to each of the City Commissions and Committees: - Reappointed the Current Members to serve for 2010 (5-0-0) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval Commission Liaison (One Member) Current Member Community Services Commission Comerchero Old Town Local Review Board Washington Planning Commission Naggar Public/Traffic Safety Commission Edwards 14.2 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on each of the following Standing Committees: - With the exception of deleting the Medical Task Force Committee and merging it with the Temecula Hospital Ad Hoc Subcommittee, reappointed the Current Members to serve for 2010 (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval Standing Committees City Sustainability Program Committee Economic Development Committee RDA/Old Town Steering Committee Finance Committee Infrastructure Beautification Committee Joint City Council/TVUSD Committee Current Member(s) Roberts, Washington Washington, Roberts Roberts, Edwards Edwards, Naggar Edwards, Naggar Edwards, Washington Murrieta/Temecula Committee Naggar, Washington Public Works/Facilities Committee Edwards, Roberts Medical Task Force Committee Naggar — deleted and merged with the Temecula Hospital Ad Hoc Subcommittee Quality of Life/Temecula 2030 Master Plan Committee Roberts, Washington Southwest Cities Coalition Committee Edwards, Comerchero 14.3 Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following Representative Assignments (External Organizations): - With the exception of the bolded appointments, reappointed the Current Member(s) to serve for 2010 and added the Rancho California Water District Liaison (5-0-0) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval with following abstentions: Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Board - Edwards Riverside County Transportation Commission — Roberts & Comerchero Riverside Transit Agency Representative — Comerchero & Edwards WRCOG —Washington & Roberts RCA Representative — Edwards & Washington Representative Assignments Animal Shelter Liaison/JPA Representative League of Calif. Congress — 2010 Voting Delegate Murrieta Creek Advisory Board National League of Cities Annual Congress 2010 Voting Delegate Pechanga Tribal Council Liaison Rancho California Water District Liaison Riverside County Child Safety Commission Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Current Member(s) Edwards Comerchero, Alt. Roberts Edwards Comerchero, Alt. Roberts Roberts, Alt. Naggar Comerchero, Roberts Edwards Edwards Roberts, Alt. Comerchero Riverside Transit Agency Representative Temecula Sister City Corporation Board of Directors WRCOG RCA Representative Zone Committee (relating to TUMF Program for WRCOG) Comerchero. Alt. Edwards Roberts Washington, Alt. Roberts Edwards, Alt. Washington Washington, Alt. Edwards 14.4 Appoint member(s) of the City Council to serve on each of the following Ad Hoc Subcommittees: - Reappointed the Current Member(s) to serve for 2010 and added the South Temecula Land and Transportation Ad Hoc Subcommittee and deleted the Wind Energy Ad Hoc Subcommittee (5-0-0) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval Ad Hoc Subcommittees Current Members (can be one or two members) Community Service Funding Ad Hoc Subcommittee Edwards, Naggar Diaz Property Ad Hoc Subcommittee Naggar, Washington External Communications Ad Hoc Subcommittee Comerchero, Edwards French Valley Parkway Interchange Ad Hoc Subcommittee Comerchero, Roberts Higher Education Ad Hoc Subcommittee Naggar, Washington Homeless Shelter Ad Hoc Subcommittee Washington, Edwards Luxury Car Dealership Ad Hoc Subcommittee Washington, Roberts Military Ad Hoc Subcommittee Washington, Edwards Nicolas Valley Ad Hoc Subcommittee Roberts, Washington Old Town Civic Center Ad Hoc Subcommittee Comerchero, Roberts Promenade Mall Ad Hoc Subcommittee Comerchero, Washington Ronald Reagan Sports Park Ad Hoc Subcommittee Edwards, Naggar Roripaugh Ranch Ad Hoc Subcommittee Comerchero, Roberts Santa Margarita Annexation Ad Hoc Subcommittee Edwards, Comerchero South Temecula Land and Transportation Ad Hoc Subcommittee — Added Roberts, Washington Summerhouse Senior Housing Development Ad Hoc Subcommittee Roberts, Washington Temecula Hospital Ad Hoc Subcommittee Comerchero, Naggar Transit Ad Hoc Subcommittee Roberts, Comerchero Villages of Old Town Ad Hoc Subcommittee Edwards, Roberts Wall of Honor Ad Hoc Subcommittee Comerchero, Edwards Wind Energy Ad Hoc Subcommittee — Deleted and merged with the City Sustainability Program Committee Youth Court Ad Hoc Subcommittee Edwards, Comerchero Youth Master Plan Implementation Ad Hoc Subcommittee Naggar, Washington 15 An Ordinance Amendina Section 10.28.01(D) of the Temecula Municipal Code regarding Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain Streets - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) — Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Washington; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 10-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.01(D) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS Reviewing the proposed amendment, Deputy Director of Public Works York presented the staff report (as per agenda material). City Attorney Thorson introduced the ordinance and read it by title only. • Mary Towell, representing the Southern Temecula Safety Coalition, thanked the City Council for lowering the speed limit on Pechanga Parkway. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT With regard to the two real property items, City Attorney Thorson advised that there was nothing to report and that any final action would be taken in open session. With respect to the one potential litigation item, City Attorney Thorson noted that the Council unanimously voted to approve the Settlement Agreement with Travelers Insurance Company under which they would complete the public improvements for the Crowne Hill Reserves Tract under the Performance and Labor and Material Bonds for the project. It was noted that the Settlement Agreement, once signed, will be available for public review. 10 ADJOURNMENT At 9:44 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, January 26, 2010, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] Jeff Comerchero, Mayor 11 Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Leah Thomas, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 10- 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 HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $2,671,227.73. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of January, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 12/30/2009 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 1,036,950.93 01/07/2010 TOTAL CHECK RUN 748,384.38 01/14/2010 TOTAL CHECK RUN 452,763.81 12/28/2009 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 1,606.47 O1/07/2010 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 431,522.14 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR O1/262010 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 2,671,227.73 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 1,151,798.81 130 RECOVERY ACT JAG FUNDING 92.42 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 1,179.44 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 18,082.27 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 317,825.37 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 77,611.99 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 70,562.11 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,370.52 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 8,958.81 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 14,340.93 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 439,835.79 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 31,116.58 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,593.70 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 50,156.65 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 17,434.47 340 FACILITIES 24,362.02 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 171.38 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA BE RETIREE-GASB45 11,605.86 $ 2,238,099.12 001 GENERAL FUND $ 263,068.98 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10,966.24 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 97,161.65 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 137.47 193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 4,371.34 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 1,342.11 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 1,189.99 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 253.44 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 4,072.72 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,309.67 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 23,504.14 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 5,329.09 340 FACILITIES 8,228.16 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA BE RETIREE-GASB45 12,193.61 433,128.61 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 2,671,227.73 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1394 01/07/2010 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT Support Payment 578.84 578.84 1395 01/07/2010 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- Project Retirement Payment 1,808.94 1,808.94 SOLUTION 1396 01/07/2010 000642 TEMECULA CITY FLEXIBLE Child Care Reimbursement Payment 9,165.30 Child Care Reimbursement Payment 0.00 9,165.30 1397 01/07/2010 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 113,727.71 113,727.71 RETIREMENT) 1398 01/07/2010 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 16,709.34 16,709.34 SOLUTION 1399 01/07/2010 000283 INSTATAX(IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 78,183.20 78,183.20 1400 01/07/2010 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 24,360.01 24,360.01 1401 01/07/2010 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PREMIUM PERS Health Admin Cost Payment 77,782.42 Blue Shield HMO Payment 0.00 77,782.42 136355 01/07/2010 003552 A F L A C AFLAC Cancer Payment 3,427.05 3,427.05 136356 01/07/2010 011347 A F S INC vehicle emission Testing: PW 14,933.44 14,933.44 136357 01/07/2010 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL Dec training: police K-9 unit 141.67 141.67 INC 136358 01/07/2010 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT Nov Const: Pechanga Pkwy II 34,340.01 34,340.01 136359 01/07/2010 012943 ALPHA MECHANICAL SERVICE Nov HVAC Maint: City Facilities 1,956.00 1,956.00 INC 136360 01/07/2010 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI & drug screenings: Police 474.00 (AFN) DUI & drug screenings: Police 434.50 Jan Stand By Fee: Police 1,200.00 2,108.50 136361 01/07/2010 000101 APPLE ONE INC temp help ppe 12/19:Bradley, T 213.00 temp help ppe 12/5: Bradley, T 71.00 284.00 136362 01/07/2010 012951 APPLIED DEVELOPMENT Nov Cnslt Svcs:Quality Of Life Plan 5,799.12 5,799.12 ECONOMICS Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136363 01/07/2010 011775 ASSN OF COMMERCIAL REAL 2010 ACRE/IE Sponsorship 175.00 175.00 ESTATE 136364 01/07/2010 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIF Membership: 04617210 Thurman, D 47.00 47.00 136365 01/07/2010 005946 AYERS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY pre -filled plastic eggs:egg hunt 1,040.00 1,040.00 136366 01/07/2010 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS guardrail maint:Rainbow Canyon 4,483.00 4,483.00 INC 136367 01/07/2010 012651 BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRAINING Inv/Interrogation tm 10/6-10: PD 944.00 944.00 136368 01/07/2010 010962 BILBY, DAVID Employee Computer Loan Pgrm 554.61 554.61 136369 01/07/2010 012583 BLANCA Y PRICE 12/15-23 Ldscp Planck Svc:Planning 5,520.00 5,520.00 136370 01/07/2010 005055 BROWN, STEPHEN Retirement Medical Payment 695.00 695.00 136371 01/07/2010 006908 C C & COMPANY INC Santa svc: High Hopes 12118 150.00 Mr.&Mrs. Santa: MPSC 12117 150.00 300.00 136372 01/07/2010 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials 400.92 PW patch truck materials 137.96 PW patch truck materials 89.18 PW patch truck materials 201.34 829.40 136373 01/07/2010 004248 CALIF DEPT OF DUI & drug screenings: Police 105.00 105.00 JUSTICE-ACCTING 136374 01/07/2010 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY welding supplies: PW Maint 18.60 18.60 136375 01/07/2010 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Dec copier lease: Citywide 4,744.84 4,744.84 INC 136376 01/07/2010 010434 CATERERS CAFE refreshments: Bkfastw/Santa 128.33 128.33 136377 01/07/2010 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO City vehicles fuel: CM 311.46 311.46 136378 01/07/2010 008594 COMMUNITY BANK Escrow:1202 All American Asphalt 3,815.56 3,815.56 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136379 01/07/2010 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 106.00 106.00 136380 01/07/2010 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING Oct geotech secs: Civic Center 31,485.50 31,485.50 136381 01/07/2010 003986 COZAD & FOX INC May Survey Svc:S Mrgta Annex 640.00 640.00 136382 01/07/2010 003561 D F M ASSOCIATES 2010 CA Elections Code Books 106.03 106.03 136383 01/07/2010 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES Jan storefront lease: PD Old Town 2,763.09 2,763.09 136384 01/07/2010 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES Dec -Jan federal lobbyist svc:CM 7,000.00 7,000.00 136385 01/07/2010 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL portable restroom:citywide cleanup 79.88 79.88 SRVCS 136386 01/07/2010 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles: Code Enf 445.15 INC Fuel for City vehicles: B&S 284.15 Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 1,659.23 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Lnd Dv 410.87 Fuel for City vehicles: PW CIP 170.00 Fuel for City vehicles: Police 46.29 Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD/IS 115.50 3,131.19 136387 01/07/2010 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION graffiti removal supplies: PW Maint 337.21 337.21 136388 01/07/2010 011203 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING Decjanitorial svc:TCSD Parks 5,315.00 5,315.00 136389 01/07/2010 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Oct EIR review svc: Liberty Quarry 5,907.73 ASSOC. Oct Old Town EIR: Planning 11,367.88 17,275.61 136390 01/07/2010 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE replace Idscp:rancho cal medians 942.42 942.42 136391 01/07/2010 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 12/4-22 express mail svc: Citywide 287.97 10/21-11/10 express mail svc:Citywide 780.65 1,068.62 136392 01/07/2010 011922 FIRST AMERICAN CORELOGIC Sept database subscr:Code Enf 18.00 INC Oct database subscr:Code Enf 12.00 30.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136393 01/07/2010 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER HILTON RR htl: SCAG mtg LA 12/2 137.50 HILTON RR htl: Metrolink Brd mtg LA 12/10 142.50 CAROL'S RESTAURANT AT GY refreshments: Sister City Visitors 315.93 MARIE CALLENDER GY meal: Union mtg 1219 36.34 632.27 RESTAURANT 25 136394 01/07/2010 004074 FRANCHISE MGMT SERVICES INC recreation supplies: MPSC 120.68 misc supplies: High Hopes 239.55 360.23 136395 01/07/2010 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Sep -Dec #330383649 2009 Form 592 1,386.00 1,386.00 136396 01/07/2010 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Support Payment 552.93 552.93 136397 01/07/2010 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC reverse osmosis washer:Stn 73 59.00 Dec maint osmosis washer:Stn 73 57.00 Dec rent osmosis washer:Stn 73 26.10 142.10 136398 01/07/2010 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT balloon columns: 20th anniv 108.75 DJ secs: Winter Wonderland 250.00 358.75 136399 01/07/2010 011283 GABRIEL ROEDER SMITH & Nov emp benefit valuation: HR 3,564.00 3,564.00 COMPANY 136400 01/07/2010 001937 GALLS INC uniform svc: Police volunteers 9.00 uniform svc: Police volunteers 10.00 19.00 136401 01/07/2010 006582 GROH, LINDA refund:house... park shadows bk 14.99 14.99 136402 01/07/2010 008081 HALL & FOREMAN INC Nov Eng Sv¢Santa Gertrudis Crk 5,460.52 5,460.52 136403 01/07/2010 012954 HANEY, JOHN THOMAS 11/20-30 Plnck Svcs: B&S 5,772.40 11/12-19 Plnck Svcs: B&S 3,299.96 Billing Adj: Recalculated Fees B09-1765 43.88 billing adj: B09-1732/1745 invd twice -1,643.21 7,473.03 136404 01/07/2010 001135 HEALTH POINTE MEDICAL GROUP emp industrial care svcs: HR 35.00 INC emp industrial care svcs: HR 135.00 emp industrial care svcs: HR 78.00 emp industrial care svcs: HR 8.00 256.00 136405 01/07/2010 010596 HODSON, JACK Retirement Medical Payment 194.65 194.65 136406 01/07/2010 000963 HOGAN, DAVID Retirement Medical Payment 695.00 695.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136407 01/07/2010 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, THE misc supplies: Theater 52.11 misc supplies: CH 81.79 133.90 136408 01/07/2010 006492 HRUSKA, ROSEANN Retirement Medical Payment 474.58 474.58 136409 01/07/2010 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 6,809.51 6,809.51 303355 136410 01/07/2010 013362 IGLESIAS, JOSE refund:sec dep:crc rm rental 400.00 400.00 136411 01/07/2010 004406 IGOE & COMPANY INC Dec flex benefit plan pmt 258.00 258.00 136412 01/07/2010 011228 INLAND PLANNING AND DESIGN Sept -Dec Cnslt Svc: Old Town 4,500.00 4,500.00 INC 136413 01/07/2010 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT Nov Copier Maint/Usage:Citywide 3,039.11 SOLUTIONS Nov Copier Maint/Usage:Library 369.08 3,408.19 136414 01/07/2010 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY INC pool chemicals: Aquatics 593.94 593.94 136415 01/07/2010 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC Jacob's House Charity Payment 300.00 300.00 136416 01/07/2010 013200 JAROTH INC Dec -Jan pay phone:rda/old town 181.81 181.81 136417 01/07/2010 007834 WART toy purchases:fire spark of love 295.80 toy purchases:fire spark of love 998.45 1,294.25 136418 01/07/2010 013363 KOINONIA FOSTER HOMES INC. refund:sec dep:crc rm rental 150.00 150.00 136419 01/07/2010 012422 KRONQUIST, MATHEW holiday light installation: Old Town 14,995.00 14,995.00 136420 01/07/2010 004051 L O R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Nov Geotech Svc: Rcho Ca Pvmt 7,105.00 7,105.00 INC 136421 01/07/2010 012065 LANCE, SOLL & LUNGHARD LLC Statement/Indebtedness: RDA 2,060.00 billing adj: inv exceeds contract amt -53.00 08/09 State Controller's Rpt 1,803.00 08/09 Engagement Final: Finance 493.00 08/09 State Controller's Rpt 1,250.00 08/09 Engagement Final: Finance 3,457.00 9,010.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description 136422 01/07/2010 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY&WHITMORE Nov HR legal svcs for TE060-01 136423 01/07/2010 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC medical supplies: Paramedics medical supplies: Paramedics 136424 01/07/2010 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS Misc signs: PW Maint Div 136425 01/07/2010 004141 MAINTEX INC misc custodial supplies: library misc custodial supplies: foc misc custodial supplies: var park sites misc custodial supplies: var park sites 136426 01/07/2010 011179 MC MILLIN REDHAWK LLC TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 136427 01/07/2010 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS INC. Reimb exp:old town marketing pgrm Jan mrkt & promo srvcs:old town Reimb exp:old town marketing pgrm 136428 01/07/2010 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MetLife Dental Insurance Payment 136429 01/07/2010 007210 MIDORI GARDENS Mainline repairs:Redhawk Prk 11/27 136430 01/07/2010 012580 MINUTEMAN PRESS business cards:S. Lankenau business cards:J. Comerchero/R. Roberts Business Cards: Dep. Marquez 136431 01/07/2010 011329 MOGHADAM, ALI Retirement Medical Payment 136432 01/07/2010 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Relocate "K" rail:public works 136433 01/07/2010 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS Auto Parts & Supplies: Sta 92 Equip repair & maint:pw maint div Equip repair & maint:pw maint div 136434 01/07/2010 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:children's museum DIV 136435 01/07/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 136436 01/07/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD City Vehicle Maint Svcs:B&S Dept Amount Paid 702.00 155.79 31.00 728.73 243.99 16.41 229.68 1,892.33 385.00 273.00 87.35 1,500.00 467.47 7,978.50 243.31 45.37 236.10 92.42 650.72 3,500.00 157.77 6.41 5.43 22.50 338.10 519.38 691.82 466.06 36.57 167.94 Page: 6 Check Total 702.00 186.79 728.73 2,382.41 658.00 2,054.82 7,978.50 243.31 373.89 650.72 3,500.00 169.61 22.50 2,051.93 167.94 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136437 01/07/2010 010906 P C R SERVICES CORPORATION Nov Air Quality Consulting: Planning 3,933.00 3,933.00 136438 01/07/2010 002099 PASCOE MANAGEMENT LLP Jan Old Town Restroom Lease 826.00 826.00 136439 01/07/2010 012833 PC MALL GOV, INC. 1.5 TB Ext Drive:lnfo Sys. 174.00 174.00 136440 01/07/2010 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PERS Long Term Care Payment 169.04 169.04 PROGRAM 136441 01/07/2010 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 176.85 176.85 136442 01/07/2010 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS pool supplies/chemicals: crc & tes pools 147.40 INC pool supplies/chemicals: crc & tes pools 33.21 180.61 136443 01/07/2010 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED Veh repair & maint:police motorcycles 237.42 237.42 136444 01/07/2010 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC PrePaid Legal Services Payment 486.25 486.25 136445 01/07/2010 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY Nov uniform/flr mat/twl rental:City 1,392.65 credit:billing adj/pw maint div -169.73 1,222.92 136446 01/07/2010 013358 QUICKRUNNER, DBA:ROAD Business License Mailing:Finance 3,704.74 3,704.74 RUNNER 136447 01/07/2010 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Nov dsgn:redhawk parks impry 791.70 791.70 136448 01/07/2010 003965 RAINBOW PRECISION Power supply:children's museum 287.47 287.47 PRODUCTS 136449 01/07/2010 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER add'I meter deposit: Pech. Pkwy ph II 514.00 514.00 DIST-FEES 136450 01/07/2010 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER add'I meter deposit:Ofc Bldg/Prkg 25.64 25.64 DIST-FEES 136451 01/07/2010 000271 RBF CONSULTING Oct eng srvcs:1-15/SR-79 Ult. Intrchg 60,383.15 Oct prof srvcs:1-15/Sr79s Ult. Intrchg 34.00 60,417.15 136452 01/07/2010 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Misc electrical supplies:library 148.16 Misc electrical supplies:aquatics 64.71 212.87 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description 136453 01/07/2010 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL Weed abatement:city's channels MANAGEMENT Weed abatementcity's channels Trash/weed abatement:am/pm city prkg 136454 01/07/2010 012545 RENNER, ANDREW V. Train rides: old town winter wonderland 136455 01/07/2010 004498 REPUBLIC INTELLIGENT Nov Street Light Maint: Citywide 136456 01/07/2010 000352 RIVERSIDE CO ASSESSOR Oct& Nov assessor maps: B&S dept. 136457 01/07/2010 005756 RIVERSIDE CO TREASURER refund:cleaning dep:TCC kitchen 136458 01/07/2010 005842 RODECKER, ERIC Retirement Medical Payment 136459 01/07/2010 007582 SAFEGUARD DENTAL & VISION SafeGuard Vision Plan Payment 136460 01/07/2010 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment 136461 01/07/2010 011511 SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA TCSD Instructor Earnings 136462 01/07/2010 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 136463 01/07/2010 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 136464 01/07/2010 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL Support Payment 136465 01/07/2010 009746 SIGNS BYTOMORROW 136466 01/07/2010 010079 SIMPKINS, KATHLEEN 136467 01/07/2010 004534 SKYTERRA 136468 01/07/2010 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 136469 01/07/2010 013273 SMITH, JAMES Signs & materials: Gallery at the Merc Banners: Children's Museum Retirement Medical Payment Dec EOC Stn Satellite Phone Svcs Recreation supplies:Brkfst w/Santa Retirement Medical Payment Amount Paid 9,750.00 6,525.00 2,560.00 678.00 1,163.98 33.00 150.00 367.83 933.00 12.50 252.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 21.36 213.08 695.00 146.44 73.21 349.99 Page: 8 Check Total 18,835.00 678.00 1,163.98 33.00 150.00 367.83 933.00 12.50 252.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 234.44 695.00 146.44 73.21 349.99 Pageb apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 136471 01/07/2010 000537 SO CALIF EDISON (Continued) Description Amount Paid Nov 2-29-224-0173: Fire Stns 1,540.23 Nov 2-29-933-3831: FOC 1,527.77 Nov 2-31-536-3655:cvc ctr twn sq F-17 1,284.18 Nov 2-02-351-4946:Sr Ctr 868.55 Nov 2-18-937-3152:41950 moreno rd 654.21 Nov 2-29-223-8607:42035 2nd st ped 497.87 Nov 2-25-393-4681:41951 moraga rd 220.08 Nov 2-20-817-9929:OT police 205.43 Nov 2-28-904-7706:32329 ovrind trl 187.25 Nov 2-28-331-4847:32805 pauba LS3 138.41 Nov 2-19-171-8568:41970 moreno rd 53.98 Nov 2-21-981-4720:30153 tem pkwy 39.67 Nov 2-14-204-1615:30027 fmt st rdio 32.45 Nov 2-27-371-8494:42189 winchester 25.28 Nov 2-29-807-1093:28079 diaz rd ped 21.63 Nov 2-31-282-0665:27407 diaz rd ped 21.63 Nov 2-29-807-1382:43485 bus pk dr 20.89 Nov 2-31-419-2873:43000 hwy 395 20.89 Nov 2-29-657-2787:41638 winchester 20.89 Nov 2-29-807-1226:28077 diaz rd ped 20.47 Nov 2-31-031-2616:27991 diaz rd ped 20.35 Dec 2-20-817-9929: Police:28410 OT 216.20 Dec 2-27-371-8494:42189 winchester 24.67 Dec 2-29-295-3510:fire:32211 wolf vly 939.07 Dec 2-29-224-0173: Fire Stns 1,552.93 Dec 2-30-520-4414:32781 tem pkwy 511.93 Dec 2-28-904-7706:32329 overland 191.69 Dec 2-21-981-4720:30153 tem pkwy tpp 44.50 Dec 2-31-419-2873:43000 hwy 395 20.41 Dec 2-29-657-2787:41638 winchester 20.41 Dec 2-29-807-1093:28079 diaz ped 22.49 Dec 2-31-536-3655:41904 main st 1,144.49 Dec 2-31-536-3481:41902 main st 288.56 Dec 2-29-807-1226:28077 diaz ped 21.07 Dec 2-29-807-1382:43485 bus pk dr 20.41 Dec 2-00-397-5042:city hall 4,682.77 Dec 2-29-458-7548:32000 rncho cal 276.00 Dec 2-29-657-2332:45538 redwd ped 18.87 Dec 2-29-953-8082:31523 wolf vty 25.46 Dec 2-29-953-8249:46497 wolf crk ped 22.24 Dec 2-28-629-0507:30600 pauba rd 5,520.56 Dec 2-02-502-8077:maint fac 1,165.41 Dec 2-30-220-8749:45850 n wolf crk 262.05 Dec 2-29-953-8447:31738 wlf vty ped 22.92 Dec 2-29-933-3831: FOC 1,592.36 Dec 2-14-204-1615:30027 fmt st rdio 31.49 Dec 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT frnt st 1,630.66 Check Total Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total Dec 2-29-223-8607:42035 2nd st ped 514.75 Dec 2-25-393-4681:41951 moraga rd 156.99 Dec 2-02-351-4946:41845 5th st 810.40 Dec 2-31-282-0665:27407 diaz ped 23.17 Dec 2-1 &937-3152:41950 moreno rd 449.76 Dec 2-19-171-8568:41970 moreno rd 62.69 Dec 2-31-031-2616:27991 diaz ped 21.07 Dec 2-Ol}397-5067:tcsd GS-1 1,860.00 31,590.56 136472 01/07/2010 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Dec 091-085-1632-0 TES pool 16.27 16.27 136473 01/07/2010 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY Rule 1415 registration:CRC 112.30 112.30 136474 01/07/2010 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL Dec pest control srvcs:OATC Ovrland Trl 48.00 INC Pest control srvcs: RRSP 12/19 84.00 132.00 136475 01/07/2010 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE Mandatory Life Insurance Payment 9,873.85 9,873.85 COMPANY 136476 01/07/2010 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE Voluntary Supp Life Insurance Payment 667.00 667.00 COMPANY 136477 01/07/2010 003000 STATE WATER RESOURCES NPDES MS4 permit:PW 13,499.00 13,499.00 136478 01/07/2010 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS Replace broken window glass:tcc 158.98 158.98 136479 01/07/2010 013359 SUNRIDGE KARATE INC. refund:sec dep:CRC rm rental 150.00 150.00 136480 01/07/2010 011897 TAG/AMS INC Nov screening srvcs:HR dept 260.00 260.00 136481 01/07/2010 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS Misc supplies: Tiny Tots pgrm 43.13 Misc supplies: Tiny Tots pgrm 28.48 Misc supplies: Tiny Tots pgrm 47.47 119.08 136482 01/07/2010 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Union Dues Payment 4,940.00 4,940.00 136483 01/07/2010 011231 TEMECULA MARINE CENTER INC. Equip repair: TCSD Boat Motor 695.21 695.21 136484 01/07/2010 011736 TEMECULA TROPHY INC Recognition supplies: HR 593.72 Recognition plaques & awards:csd 108.75 702.47 136485 01/07/2010 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY Recognition service awards:HR 176.63 176.63 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 01/07/2010 1:08:33PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136486 01/07/2010 009176 TICKET ENVELOPE COMPANY Will Call Envelopes: Theater 735.80 735.80 136487 01/07/2010 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Jan high speed internet:42081 main st 58.29 Jan high speed internet:mpsc 44.95 103.24 136488 01/07/2010 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL Equip repair & maint:pw maint div 11.77 11.77 136489 01/07/2010 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE INC Misc traffic control supplies:pw maint 278.07 278.07 136490 01/07/2010 004145 TW TELECOM Dec gen phone usage:City 5,691.26 5,691.26 136491 01/07/2010 001561 U S A MOBILITY WIRELESS INC Dec paging/rental svcs:tcsd,pw 143.06 143.06 136492 01/07/2010 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE Postage meter deposit 2,374.23 2,374.23 136493 01/07/2010 002065 UNISOURCE Copy paper: City Hall 269.58 creditcopy paper/city hall -1,145.03 Copy paper: City Hall 6,241.08 5,365.63 136494 01/07/2010 000199 UNITED STATE TREASURY Support Payment 250.00 250.00 136495 01/07/2010 000325 UNITED WAY United Way Charities Payment 36.00 36.00 136496 01/07/2010 004261 VERIZON Dec xxx-3526 gen usage:fre alarm 106.42 Dec xxx-2676 general usage 35.48 Dec xxx-1999 general usage 40.78 Dec xxx-0049 gen usage:j comerchero 35.48 Dec xxx-9196 gen usage:tcc safe 172.14 Dec xxx-5696 gen usage:sprts complex 35.48 Dec xxx-5706 gen usage: FOC 178.87 Dec xxx-2016 gen usage: reverse 911 120.57 725.22 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 748,384.38 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 136497 01/14/2010 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI 136498 01/14/2010 009033 ALLEN, STEVEN L. 136499 01/14/2010 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 136500 01/14/2010 009597 BALL, DIANE 136501 01/14/2010 011007 BARNETT, KIRK 136502 01/14/2010 012583 BLANCAYPRICE Description TCSD instructor earnings photography svc:plaza dedication Bottled wtr secs: CH Bottled wtr svcs: Library Bottled wtr svcs: Maint Facility Bottled wtr svcs: VRMS Bottled wtr svcs: CRC Bottled wtr svcs: Theater Bottled wtr svcs: PBSP Bottled wtr svcs: Ch Museum Bottled wtr svcs: TV Museum Bottled wtr svcs: Fld Op Ctr Bottled wtr svcs: TCC Bottled wtr svcs: Skate Park reimb: PC832 training 1/11-15 reimb: aluminum tubing for storage 1228-1/8 Ldscp Pln Ck Svc:Planning 136503 01/14/2010 012287 BORDEAUX PRINTERS INC brochure printing svcs: Theater 136504 01/14/2010 012878 C.S. OFFICE INTERIORS Ergonomic Items: Pw/Planning 136505 01/14/2010 005321 CALIF ASSOC OF CODE 09/10 mbrshp: Ball, Diane 136506 01/14/2010 004248 CALIF DEPT OF DUI & drug screenings: Police JUSTICE-ACCTING 136507 01/14/2010 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY welding supplies: PW Maint Helium tanks rental/refill:TCSD 136508 01/14/2010 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Dec copier lease pmts: Fire INC 136509 01/14/2010 013004 CARLSON MOBILE SERVICE INC vehicle repair/maint: PW Maint vehicle repair/maint: PW Maint vehicle repair/maint: PW Maint Amount Paid 880.00 300.00 172.04 67.04 62.69 62.43 53.59 35.86 28.48 27.88 18.09 17.38 13.39 8.69 100.00 105.27 2,865.00 1,041.83 297.54 18.75 1,400.00 52.94 47.92 182.55 404.18 391.34 75.00 Check Total 880.00 300.00 567.56 100.00 105.27 2,865.00 1,041.83 297.54 18.75 1,400.00 100.86 182.55 870.52 Page apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 136510 01/14/2010 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION (Continued) Description Amount Paid Dec database subscription: PD 158.95 Check Total 158.95 136511 01/14/2010 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO City vehicles fuel: Police 1,103.60 1,103.60 136512 01/14/2010 006303 CONDUIT NETWORKS, INC technical consulting: Info Sys 65.00 65.00 136513 01/14/2010 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL misc electrical supplies: Parks 769.49 DIST. misc electrical supplies:Old Town 543.48 misc electrical supplies: Parks 220.49 misc electrical supplies: Parks 116.36 1,649.82 136514 01/14/2010 011870 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN, LLC trauma clean-up svcs: Police 500.00 500.00 136515 01/14/2010 004194 D L T SOLUTIONS INC 2010 Autocad:license renewal 2,117.08 2,117.08 136516 01/14/2010 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL Dec -Jan restroom svc: GOHS 101.22 SRVCS Dec restroom svc: Riverton 52.88 Dec restroom svc: Long Canyon 52.88 Dec restroom svc: Veterans 52.88 Dec restroom svc: Vail Ranch 52.88 Dec restroom svc: Redhawk 52.88 365.62 136517 01/14/2010 013341 DK QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Res Impr Pgrm: Elder 330.00 330.00 136518 01/14/2010 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for City vehicles: PW Maint 1,446.67 INC Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 1,235.42 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Maint 913.50 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Lnd Dv 377.64 Fuel for City vehicles: Code Enf 356.40 Fuel for City vehicles: B&S 344.53 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Traffic 311.80 Fuel for City vehicles: PW Traffic 174.62 Fuel for City vehicles: PW CIP 164.83 Fuel for City vehicles: Police 63.58 5,388.99 136519 01/14/2010 003665 EXCEL COMMERCIAL Dec long distance phone svcs 54.55 54.55 136520 01/14/2010 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Ldscp Maint Srvcs:Sports Park- 43,040.00 Dec landscape maint: sth slopes 39,158.00 Dec landscape maint: nth slopes 21,860.00 Dec Landscape Maint: Medians 16,487.00 Dec Landscape MaintCity Facilities 9,685.00 valve repair: RRSP 165.45 130,395.45 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136521 01/14/2010 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK sttlmnt: Guys & Dolls Jan'10 3,253.46 3,253.46 136522 01/14/2010 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER WESTERN ARTS ALLIANCE HP 1/10-12/10 mbrshp: Beers, B 400.00 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES GR airfare'10 Tabs Conf SF GR/PR 156.20 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES GR airfare'10 Tabs Conf SF GR/PR 156.20 PAYPAL GR verisign payflow pro trans 59.95 772.35 136523 01/14/2010 011967 FULL VALUE ENTERTAINMENT sttlmnt: Live @ Merc 12/18 77.00 77.00 136524 01/14/2010 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC Dec svc osmosis washer:Stn 73 128.33 128.33 136525 01/14/2010 001937 GALLS INC uniforms: Police motorcycle unit 362.53 uniforms: Police motorcycle unit 226.12 uniforms: Police motorcycle unit 207.49 uniforms: Police volunteers 27.70 uniforms: Police volunteers 4.00 uniforms: Police volunteers 2.00 uniforms: Police volunteers 1.00 830.84 136526 01/14/2010 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Office supplies: PW 22.14 22.14 INC 136527 01/14/2010 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY Entertainment: Classics @ Merc 4,875.00 sttlmnt: Classics @ Merc 12109 1,982.40 6,857.40 136528 01/14/2010 005311 H2O CERTIFIED POOL WATER Dec pool maint: CRC/TES 900.00 SPCL. Dec fountain maint: town square 175.00 1,075.00 136529 01/14/2010 002701 HUB INT'L INSURANCE SERVCS Dec'09 special events premiums 629.94 629.94 INC 136530 01/14/2010 000863 IPMA 2/10-1/11 mbrshp: GY, BG, DL 360.00 360.00 136531 01/14/2010 000863 IPMA employment law update 1/21 BG/DL 80.00 80.00 136532 01/14/2010 010428 IT'S A DOGS WORLD K-9 TCSD Instructor earnings 415.80 415.80 ACADEMY 136533 01/14/2010 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC banner maint/storage:Old Town 428.75 banner maint/storage: RDA 277.97 706.72 136534 01/14/2010 008715 KRAMER FIRM INC Nov Telecom App Cnslt:Planning 4,000.00 4,000.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136535 01/14/2010 012065 LANCE, SOLL & LUNGHARD LLC 08/09 Final Engagment: Finance 211.00 211.00 136536 01/14/2010 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMORE mgmt training: Citywide 2,000.00 2,000.00 136537 01/14/2010 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC Medical Supplies: Paramedics 417.35 Medical Supplies: Paramedics 242.10 returned product: Paramedics -69.60 returned product: Paramedics -166.76 423.09 136538 01/14/2010 004087 LOWES INC water filters: Stn 73 237.84 237.84 136539 01/14/2010 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS Parking signs:mpsc 141.38 141.38 136540 01/14/2010 004141 MAINTEX INC Misc custodial supplies:library 611.50 Misc custodial supplies:foc 582.03 Misc custodial supplies:theater 576.16 Misc custodial supplies:tcc 376.93 Misc custodial supplies:library 344.52 Misc custodial supplies:var park sites 275.63 Misc custodial supplies:children museum 248.68 Misc custodial supplies:foc 243.01 Misc custodial supplies:var park sites 104.98 Misc custodial supplies:mpsc 78.65 Misc custodial supplies:tcc 72.16 Misc custodial supplies:mpsc 52.49 Misc custodial supplies:history museum 52.49 Misc custodial supplies:crc 41.76 Misc custodial supplies:tcc 19.66 Misc custodial supplies:var park sites 17.50 Misc custodial supplies:west wing 17.50 3,715.65 136541 01/14/2010 013369 MASSOL, MARITZA refund:bal on acct:comm svc classes 8.00 8.00 136542 01/14/2010 009541 MEYER AND ASSOCIATES Sept -Nov dsgn srvcs:tcc expansion 9,706.00 9,706.00 136543 01/14/2010 012962 MILLER, MISTY TCSD Instructor Earnings 490.00 490.00 136544 01/14/2010 010103 MIRAN ENTERPRISES INC Res Impry Prgm:Gessow, E. 1,809.64 1,809.64 136545 01/14/2010 002257 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS Drinking fountain parts:var parks 168.95 168.95 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date Vendor 136546 01/14/2010 000233 NELSON. SHAWN (Continued) Description reimb: Dec'09 internet services 136547 01/14/2010 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Dec advertising: RDA/o.t. holiday Dec advertising:theater Dec advertising:tcsd holiday events Dec public notices: Planning 136548 01/14/2010 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:police mall office DIV Misc office supplies:police mall office Misc office supplies:police mall office 136549 01/14/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs: PW Maint 136550 01/14/2010 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs Code Enf 136551 01/14/2010 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Misc supplies:children's museum INC 136552 01/14/2010 013365 ORTHO MATTRESS INC 10 beds for Fire Stn 84 136553 01/14/2010 007735 PATRIOT HEATING & AIR Res Impry Prgm: Morton, M. 136554 01/14/2010 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT COMPANY rental equip:lights for ice rink parking Equip Repair & MaintCsd Maint Equip Repair & MaintCsd Maint 136555 01/14/2010 011861 PLUMBMASTER INC. Drinking fountain parts:var parks 136556 01/14/2010 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS pool supplies/chemicals: crc & tes pools INC pool supplies/chemicals: crc & tes pools 136557 01/14/2010 002185 POSTMASTER Annual PO box fee payment:City Hall 136558 01/14/2010 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN Dec'09 plancheck srvcs:fre prev Amount Paid Check Total 44.99 44.99 1,440.00 631.28 180.00 44.40 2,295.68 140.77 23.81 -12.35 152.23 167.94 36.57 258.04 462.55 167.94 167.94 45.96 45.96 4,349.90 4,349.90 1,552.00 1,552.00 163.80 162.00 144.12 469.92 232.67 232.67 291.82 287.69 579.51 1,160.00 1,160.00 1,306.15 1,306.15 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description 136559 01/14/2010 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Dec various water meters:TCSD Dec var water meters:TCSD Dec var water meters Fire Stns Dec water meterfloating mtr:pw Nov var water meters:28922 pujol Dec var water meters main st irrig Dec var water meters: fountain/d.f. Dec var water meters wolf crk dr s Dec var water meters:pechanga pkwy Dec var water meters:28640 pujol 136560 01/14/2010 011453 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CITY OF '10 Econ.OutIook mtg 1/21 GR/RG 136561 01/14/2010 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Misc electrical supplies:meadows park Misc electrical supplies:aquatics Misc electrical supplies:aquatics 136562 01/14/2010 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK& Ntc/exemption-new TUMF Ordinance RECORDER 136563 01/14/2010 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT Jul -Oct retroactive booking fees:Police Nov booking fees:Police Electric light parade patrol srvcs 12/4 Rhythms teen dance patrol srvcs 11/14 136564 01/14/2010 009980 SANBORN, GWYN Country @ the Merc 12/26/09 136565 01/14/2010 013169 SCHINSKY, WILLIAM C. 136566 01/14/2010 010089 SECURITAS SECURITY SRVCS USA 136567 01/14/2010 013370 SITU, BI YUN Catalog artifacts: history museum Dec security patrol srvcs:harveston lake refund little learners 2010.101 Amount Paid 11,619.17 780.95 532.53 353.79 160.41 83.90 62.48 36.81 30.74 14.13 42.00 1,149.05 129.41 12.94 64.00 15,322.51 6,499.04 6,110.58 699.32 547.50 1,200.00 3,307.50 240.00 Check Total 13,674.91 42.00 1,291.40 64.00 28,631.45 547.50 1,200.00 3,307.50 240.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description 136568 01/14/2010 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Dec 2-01-202-7330:var LS-1 allnite Dec 2-01-202-7603:arterial stlt Dec 2-05-791-8807:31587 tem pkwy Jan 2-02-351-5281:CRC Jan 2-27-805-3194:42051 main st Jan 2-20-79&3248:42081 main st Jan 2-10-331-2153:28816 pujol st Jan 2-30-60&9384:28582 harveston Dec 2-29-657-2563:42902 butterfeld Dec 2-29-479-2981:31454 tem pkwy Dec 2-29-974-7899:26953 ynez LS3 Jan 2-31-419-2659:26706 ynez TC1 Dec 2-31-031-2590:28301 rncho cal Jan 2-30-066-2889:30051 rncho vsta 136569 01/14/2010 000282 SO CALIF MUNICIPAL ATHLETIC '10 membership dues:5tcsd staff 136570 01/14/2010 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL Dec pest control srvcs:City fac's INC Pest control srvcs: Fire Stn 84 Pest control srvcs: Pauba Ridge Park Pest control srvcs:Crowne Hill Park Pest control srvcs: Paloma del Sol Park 136571 01/14/2010 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Jan xxx-0839 gen phone usage 136572 01/14/2010 005786 SPRINT 136573 01/14/2010 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS TRANSCRIPTION 136574 01/14/2010 007900 SYERS, KATHI Nov 26-Dec 25 cellular usage/equip Dec transcription srvcs:temecula police ee computer purchase prgm 136575 01/14/2010 011667 T & T JANITORIAL INC Dec janitorial srvcs:city facilities Dec janitorial srvcs:police storefront 136576 01/14/2010 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD SRVCS Misc supplies:skate park pgrm Misc supplies:high hopes pgrm Misc supplies:tiny tots pgrm 136577 01/14/2010 012265 TEMECULA ACE HARDWARE C/O Misc supplies:var park sites 136578 01/14/2010 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LLC Motorcycle repair/maint:Tem.P.D. Amount Paid 77,470.01 27,389.87 11,156.66 4,117.10 3,290.96 907.40 692.18 459.56 165.73 113.47 110.33 83.48 56.91 21.57 i1111111b: 639.00 80.00 46.00 46.00 46.00 70.08 5,918.35 568.54 722.86 7,073.83 790.00 84.80 62.31 20.66 12.98 474.48 Check Total 126,035.23 350.00 857.00 70.08 5,918.35 568.54 722.86 7,863.83 167.77 12.98 474.48 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 01/14/2010 1:56:45PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 136579 01/14/2010 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY Oct-Dec'09 bus bench install/maint: PW 3,000.00 3,000.00 FOUND. 136580 01/14/2010 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY Nov'09 Bus. Impry District Asmnts 38,433.66 38,433.66 CONVENTION & 136581 01/14/2010 009194 TEMECULA VALLEY NEWS Dec advertising:theater 143.20 143.20 136582 01/14/2010 004759 TWIN GRAPHICS Graphics: City police units 56.55 56.55 136583 01/14/2010 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Dec undrgrnd secs alert tickets: PW 148.50 148.50 136584 01/14/2010 004864 V N W CIRCLE OF CARE INC CDBG Reimbursement #2 1,179.44 1,179.44 136585 01/14/2010 004261 VERIZON Jan xxx-4200 general usage 899.74 Jan xxx-8900 genl usage:Library 823.61 Jan xxx-1341 gen usage Theater 442.77 Jan xxx-1941 gen usage:pta cd ttacsd 71.88 Jan xxx-3910 gen usage:l st st irrig 38.78 Jan xxx-5180 gen usage:79S irrig ctr 38.46 2,315.24 136586 01/14/2010 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Dec long distance phone secs 70.29 Dec long distance phone secs 36.28 106.57 136587 01/14/2010 012219 VIERLING, MARIKA Carriage Srvcs:Old Town Holiday 11/27 750.00 750.00 136588 01/14/2010 010487 WATSON, LUKE reimb:bus.phone expenses 10/3-11/2 44.50 44.50 136589 01/14/2010 001342 WAXIE SANITARYSUPPLY INC Misc custodial supplies:theater 647.32 647.32 136590 01/14/2010 013350 WIGGINS, PHILLIP T. Performance: theater 1/15/10 4,650.00 4,650.00 136591 01/14/2010 000230 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES Jan -Mar assessment eng srvcs:csd 5,649.98 5,649.98 136592 01/14/2010 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC Add'I electrical outlets: city hall 1,800.00 1,800.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 452,763.81 Pageb Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Application Proposals for Fiscal Year 2010-11 PREPARED BY: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Finance Committee funding recommendations for fiscal year 2010-11. 2. Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub -Recipient Agreements for2010-11 funding recipients and reprogram CDBG funds in accordance with the budget resolution for general administration of the fiscal year 2010-11 CDBG Funds. 3. Authorize the City to apply for separate CDBG funding allocated to the Third District Supervisors office to be used for the construction of the Old Town Gymnasium. BACKGROUND: The CDBG program is a federal grant program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in which funding is allocated to the City annually through the Economic Development Agency of Riverside County (EDA). The City's allocation for fiscal year 2010-11 is expected to be at least the same as the previous fiscal year: $385,285. According to CDBG regulations, only 15% of the total allocation can be allocated to Public Services. The remainder will be used for our public facility project, the Old Town Gymnasium. The City invited applications for funding from non-profit agencies who meet one of the following goals: 1. The project/activity benefits 51% low/moderate income persons 2. The project/activity aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. 3. The activity meets an emergent community development need. A total of 8 funding applications were submitted to the City for consideration and all were determined to be eligible for CDBG funding. As summarized in the following table, the Finance Committee is recommending a total expenditure of $57,793 for Public Services (which is 15% of last year's allocation), and $327,492 for Public Facilities. Fiscal Year 2010-11 CDBG ALLOCATION FUNDING CATEGORY FUNDING ALLOCATION Public Services 15% cap) $ 57,793 Public Facilities (Temecula Community Center Expansion) $ 327,492 Requested CDBG Allocation for FY 2009/10 $ 385,285 In the event that the City's allocation is reduced or increased, it is recommended that all projects be reduced or increased equally, according to the percentage in allocation reduction or increase. All projects are subject to final approval at a future Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting. The EDA will submit a Supplemental Agreement to the City identifying the projects approved for funding in July, 2010. The Finance Committee, composed of Council Member Maryann Edwards and Council Member Mike Naggar, met on January 12, 2010. After thorough review, the Finance Committee proposed CDBG funding for six (6) public service organizations and one City capital project (Old Town Gymnasium). FISCAL IMPACT: The CDBG funds allocated to outside agencies have minimal impact on the City related to staff time to administer program requirements. ATTACHMENTS: Finance Committee Funding Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2010-11 CDBG Application Summary for Fiscal Year 2010-11 Funding Cycle CITY OF TEMECULA CDBG 2010/2011 FINANCE COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/2011 FY 2010/2011 Funding Funding Funding Funding PUBLIC FACILITIES Request Award * Request Recommendation Old Town Temecula Gymnasium $355,000 $329,105 $327,492 $327,492 PUBLIC SERVICES Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) $15,000 $0 $0 $0 Outreach Program Services Assistance League of Temecula Valley 10,000 9,210 10,000 10,000 Operation School Bell Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County 30,000 6,445 30,000 0 The Learning Center CASA for Riverside County 10,000 6,445 20,000 7,793 Advocacy for Abused Children Musician's Workshop 10,000 0 0 0 Performing Arts and Music Access Neighborhood Healthcare 8,500 0 0 0 Diabetes Self -Management Program New Vision Children's Services 20,000 1,845 0 0 SW Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center 5,000 4,605 5,000 0 Rape Prevention Education Safe Alternatives For Everyone, Inc. 15,000 9,210 25,000 10,000 Family Support Program Senior Citizen Service Center 10,000 9,210 10,000 10,000 Temecula Emergency Assistance Program Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship 10,000 0 0 0 Single Moms in Balance Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission 0 0 30,000 10,000 Emergency Food Program Valley Oaks Ranch 26,424 0 0 0 Equine Intervention Program VNW Circle of Care Program 25,000 9,210 12,000 10,000 Volunteer Center of Riverside County 14,550 0 0 0 211 Call Center Total Public Services $209,474 $56,180 $142,000 $57,793 Total Public Facilities/Infrastructure $364,474 $329,105 $327,492 $327,492 MIT on ' � c � c * Public Service awards were reduced pro rata a total of $4,820 due to a reduction in funds allocated by HUD. Public Facilities award was reduced by $25,895 due to a reduction in funds allocated by HUD. CITY OF TEMECULA CDBG APPLICATION SUMMARY 2010/2011 FUNDING CYCLE AGENCY FUNDING PROJECT SUMMARY PURPOSE OF REQUEST FUNDING City of Temecula Old Town Gymnasium $ 327,492 Public Facility Construction TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY REQUESTS $ 327,492 Assistance League of Operation School Bell $ 10,000 Provision of clothing and Clothing for Temecula Valley supplies for children. children Boys & Girls Clubs of The Learning Connection $ 30,000 Before- and after -school care Scholarships Southwest County for underserved youth. Advocacy for Abused, Recruit, train and supervise Salaries, Benefits, CASA for Riverside County Neglected and Abandoned $ 20,000 20 community volunteers, Supplies, Training Children Riverside Area Rape Crisis Support to rape victims Staff Salaries, Center Rape Prevention Education $ 5,000 including crisis intervention Space costs and advocacy. Safe Alternatives for Police Activities League Provision of services to at -risk Staff Salaries for Everyone, Inc. Violence Prevention $ 25,000 youth to avoid violence and Domestic Violence Program abuse. advocates Senior Citizens Service Emergency Food $ 10,000 Provision of food and supplies Rent, Supplies, Center to low-income families. Food, Utility Costs Temecula Murrieta Rescue Provide bi-weekly food box Food and Staff Mission Emergency Food $ 30,000 distribution to low income and Salaries homeless clients VNW Circle of Care VNW Circle of Care $ 12,000 Provision of food and supplies Rent to low-income families. TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES REQUESTS $ 142,000 TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTS $ 469,492 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FOR ITEM NO.4 CITY OF TEMECULA FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager and City Council FROM: Genie Roberts, Director of Finance DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Revised Community Development Block Grant Application Proposals for Fiscal Year 2010-11 Agenda Report, dated January 26, 2010 The above -referenced CDBG Agenda Report has been revised to correct a typographical error on the second page of the Agenda Report. The chart entitled "Fiscal Year 2010-11 CDBG Allocation" made reference to the Temecula Community Center Expansion in error instead of the Old Town Gymnasium. GRIMM Attachment: Revised Agenda Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance, January 26, 2010 Community Development Block Grant Application Proposals for Fiscal Year 2010-11 PREPARED BY: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Finance Committee funding recommendations for fiscal year 2010-11. 2. Authorize the Director of Finance to execute Sub -Recipient Agreements for 2010-11 funding recipients and reprogram CDBG funds in accordance with the budget resolution for general administration of the fiscal year 2010-11 CDBG Funds. 3. Authorize the City to apply for separate CDBG funding allocated to the Third District Supervisors office to be used for the construction of the Old Town Gymnasium. BACKGROUND: The CDBG program is a federal grant program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in which funding is allocated to the City annually through the Economic Development Agency of Riverside County (EDA). The City's allocation for fiscal year 2010-11 is expected to be at least the same as the previous fiscal year: $385,285. According to CDBG regulations, only 15% of the total allocation can be allocated to Public Services. The remainder will be used for our public facility project, the Old Town Gymnasium. The City invited applications for funding from non-profit agencies who meet one of the following goals: 1. The project/activity benefits 51 % low/moderate income persons. 2. The project/activity aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. 3. The activity meets an emergent community development need. A total of 8 funding applications were submitted to the City for consideration and all were determined to be eligible for CDBG funding. As summarized in the following table, the Finance Committee is recommending a total expenditure of $57,793 for Public Services (which is 15% of last year's allocation), and $327,492 for Public Facilities. Fiscal Year 2010-11 CDBG ALLOCATION FUNDING CATEGORY FUNDING ALLOCATION Public Services 15% cap) $ 57,793 Public Facilities Old Town Gymnasium) $ 327,492 Requested CDBG Allocation for FY 2010/11 $ 385,285 In the event that the City's allocation is reduced or increased, it is recommended that all projects be reduced or increased equally, according to the percentage in allocation reduction or increase. All projects are subject to final approval at a future Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting. The EDA will submit a Supplemental Agreement to the City identifying the projects approved for funding in July, 2010. The Finance Committee, composed of Council Member Maryann Edwards and Council Member Mike Naggar, met on January 12, 2010. After thorough review, the Finance Committee proposed CDBG funding for six (6) public service organizations and one City capital project (Old Town Gymnasium). FISCAL IMPACT: The CDBG funds allocated to outside agencies have minimal impact on the City related to staff time to administer program requirements. ATTACHMENTS: Finance Committee Funding Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2010-11 CDBG Application Summary for Fiscal Year 2010-11 Funding Cycle Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Gregory J. Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Citywide Storm Drain Improvements, Rancho California Road at Vincent Moraga Drive Project No. PW09-09 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer - CIP Jon Salazar, Associate Engineer - CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Storm Drain Improvements, Rancho California Road at Vincent Moraga Drive, Project No. PW09-09. BACKGROUND: Various locations in the City have been identified as requiring localized improvements to existing storm drain systems to correct flooding problems that occur during each storm event. This project will consist of the construction of two (2) new catch basins and the installation of approximately 200' of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) of various sizes. Relocation of an existing Rancho California Water District waterline will also be required. The cost of the relocation, estimated to be $60,000, will be paid by RCWD. Project specifications are complete and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the Director of Public Works' office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for the project, including the cost to relocate RCWD waterline, is $140,000.00. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, Existing Facilities, under 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15301 and as a Class 2 Categorical Exemption, Replacement or Reconstruction, under 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15302. The project involves the minor alteration of an existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this approval and is therefore a Class 1 Categorical Exemption. Additionally, the project involves the reconstruction of existing structures and facilities that will be located on the same site and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. The Director of Public Works shall cause a Notice of Exception to be filed as required by law. FISCAL IMPACT: The Citywide Storm Drain Improvements, Rancho California Road at Vincent Moraga Drive project is included in the City's FY10-14 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and is funded with Capital Project Reserves. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Project Description PmjrtlTklr. CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS- RANCHO CALIFORNIA ED. AT VINCENT MORAGA DR. N A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Title: CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY: 1 Project Type: Inframunme Description: Design and contract shown &am impmvemmts to correct intersection and water 0oodingat various locations. Department: Public Works— Account No. 210.165,715 Scope of Project: Project will focus an improvements Nat would cones flooding problems on several meets Nat Flood during each stem event, Benefit: Project will improvemfery and circulation while maintaining me integrity of the snens during inclement weadur. Project Cost: AnuW Total ITojeet to Dare 20N10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Cat Administration $ 18,278 $ 50,Ooo $ 41,000 f 139,778 Acquisition $ 62,500 $ 62,5W Consiuction $ 29,280 f 250,000 $ 280,50o $ 559p80 Design 8 5,08 f 50,000 $ 52,000 $ 112,4 $ Environmental E 19,00'J $ 19,Oo0 MSHCP $ 12,500 $ 14,025 $ 26,525 Teals S 53,466 E 362,500 f $ $ 8 504,025 E 919,991 Source M Fusedis Capital Project Reserwo S 53,4645 S 362,500 S 415,966 Unspecified' $ 504,025 S 504,W5 Tend pending: f 53466 S 3 22,500 $ E E S 5 44,025 E 919'"1 Future O S M Cost: $ 1,00o Annually 'Project wmot be constructed call a finding source is identified 0 Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Approval of Change Order No. 1 to the Construction Contract for the Street Striping Program, FY 2009-2010, Project No. PW09-04 PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer- CIP Chris White, Assistant Engineer- CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Change Order No. 1 to the Construction Contract for the Street Striping Program for FY 2009-2010, Project No. PW09-04 to Pacific Striping, Inc. in the amount of $174,417.18. BACKGROUND: The Street Striping Program, FY 2009-2010, Project No. PW09-04, provides for bi-annual Citywide re -painting of street striping and pavement markings as part of routine maintenance. In addition to repainting existing stripes and pavement markings, the scope of work includes other minor modifications, such as the removal of existing stripes and the placement of new traffic stripes and pavement markings. On Tuesday July 14, 2009, the City Council awarded the First Cycle of the Street Striping Program construction contract to Pacific Striping, Inc. in the amount of $111,925.00 and approved a 10% contingency of $11,192.50 for a total authorization of $123,117.50. It has been determined that additional re -striping is required to complete the work in the first cycle. Staff has negotiated a fair and equitable increase in scope and is recommending that the City Council approve the additional construction costs of $21,618.14 to complete the first cycle. As noted in the bid documents, the City's striping program includes a second cycle of striping. This second cycle is necessary to fully complete all restriping in the City for this fiscal year, as part of the City's routine maintenance. Change Order No. 1, covers the cost needed to complete the work on the first cycle, $21,618.14, and the cost to implement the second cycle of the striping program in the amount of $152,799.04. A table in Change Order No. 1 shows the detail of the work to be done. FISCAL IMPACT: The Street Striping Program, FY 2009-2010 is funded with Public Works Maintenance Division FY2009-2010 Operating Budget for Public Works Routine Street Maintenance, Striping/Stenciling. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 001-164-601-5410. The total requested amount is $174,417.18, which includes the $21,618.14 for additional re -striping required for the first cycle and $152,799.04 for the implementation of the second cycle. ATTACHMENTS: Change Order No. 1 with Pacific Striping, Inc. CITY OF TEMECULA CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 PROJECT NO. PW09-04 Page 1 of 3 PROJECT: STREET STRIPING PROGRAM FY 2009-2010 PROJECT NO. PW09-04 TO CONTRACTOR: Pacific Striping, Inc. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved by the City Council. CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED BY: ENGINEER 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Extra work to be performed by the contractor, as directed by the City. This change order includes all necessary work for a second cycle of restriping per the bid documents and as directed by the City. The quantities, unit costs and the total costs are as follows: Estimated Unit Extended Item Description Unit Quantity Price Amount 1 4" Centerline or 4" Laneline (includes 50' 715,686 LF 0.025 $17,892.15 lead in/out 2 4" left edgeline (Detail 24) or 4" right 302,857 LF 0.04 $12,114.28 edgeline (Detail 27B) 3 Median Island (Detail 28) 448,897 LF 0.09 $40,400.73 4 8" Channelizing Line (Detail 38A) 158,059 LF 0.08 $12,644.72 5 No Passing Zones - One Direction (Detail 15) 80,000 LF 0.01 $800.00 6 & 7 6" Bike Lane Line (Detail 39) & 6" 435,213 LF 0.12 $52,225.56 Intersection Line Bike Lane (Detail 39A) 8 Two-way Left Turn Lane (Detail 31) 159,960 LF 0.085 $13,596.60 9 Remove Pavement Delineation 2,500 SF 1 $2,500.00 10 1 Alignment and Layout 2,500 LF 0.25 $625.00 Second Cycle Total $152,799.04 This change includes full compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals for performing all work necessary to restripe the streets, to remove/replace pavement delineation and to provide mobilization/demobilization and traffic control, as specified in the Project Specifications and as directed by the Engineer. METHOD OF PAYMENT: Total Cost of the Second Cycle........................................................... TotalItem 1.1.................................................................................................. ..... $ 152,799.04 .....$ 152,799.04 Ct oge FilesU eeviaCom�oc"mmt Convert \t W51553.doc Cd11lillaI=ILfilxfl1111119 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 PROJECT NO. PW09-04 Page 2 of 3 Extra work to be performed by the contractor, as directed by the City. This change order includes all necessary work for additional work associated with the first cycle of restriping throughout the city. This change includes full compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals for performing all work necessary to restripe the streets, to remove/replace pavement delineation and to provide mobilization/demobilization and traffic control, as specified in the Project Specifications and as directed by the Engineer. METHOD OF PAYMENT: Additional Work (Cycle One) at Agreed Lump Sum Price: Total Cost of Additional Work........................................................................ $ 21,618.14 TotalItem 1.2.............................................................................................................$ 21,618.14 The agreed upon price constitutes full compensation, including mark-ups for the work described above and no additional compensation will be allowed therefore. CCO 1 — TOTAL INCREASE $ 174,417.18 Original Contract Amount.....................................................................................$ 111,925.00 This Change.......................................................................................................$ 174,417.18 Previously Approved Changes............................................................................$ 0.00 Total Adjusted Contract Amount......................................................................$ 286,342.18 Original Contract Working Days..........................................................................30 ThisChange Order............................................................................................. 0 Previously Approved Changes............................................................................ 0 Total Adjusted Contract Working Days...........................................................30 C�oge FilesUeevia Comb o=mtConvat \t W51553.doc [111]kV961aI=IIJilx0111w9 Prepared by: City of Temecula — Chris White Assistant Engineer, CIP Submitted by: CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 PROJECT NO. PW09-04 Page 3 of 3 City of Temecula — Mayra De La Torre, P.E. Senior Engineer, CIP Approved: (As directed by City council) City of Temecula - Greg Butler, P.E. Director of Public Works Date: Date: Date: We the undersigned contractor has given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree: If this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above. Accepted: Date: By: Name: Signature Scott Fisher Contractor: Pacific Striping, Inc. Title: Company name President If the contractor does not sign acceptance of this order, his attention is directed to the requirements of the specifications as to proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein specified. C�oge FilesUeevia Comb o=mtConvat \t W51553.doc Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Tim Thorson, Director of Information Systems DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Purchase of Eden Software Support and Maintenance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase of annual Financials and Payroll Software Support from Eden Systems, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2009/10 for the total amount of $36,013.61. BACKGROUND: The City currently uses the Eden suite of application modules for fund and encumbrance accounting to include payroll. The approval of this request would authorize the annual support of this software. These financial and Human Resources modules provide the City with ultimate control of its financial processes. The Eden Financial/HR Application suite is a Windows -based environment that interacts with Microsoft SQL databases and complies with state and federal regulations. This product is a proprietary application and can only be obtained from Eden Systems Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the 2009-10 Fiscal Year Budget for the Information Systems Internal Services fund. ATTACHMENTS: Software Support Quote A0 Remittance: Tyler Technologies, Inc P. ox 678168 Dallllass,, TX 752677-8168 Date Page 20861 12/03/2009 1 of 2 ler ! technologies Questions: Phone: 207-781-2260 Toll -free: 1-800-772-2260 Email: munis.accounting@tylertech.com Ci of TEMECUTA Fax: 207-781-2459 (Accounting Dept) r 1 Bill To: City of Temecula Ship To: City of Temecula DEC — 7 2009 Accounts Payable Accounts Payab '� PO BOX 9033 PO BOX 9033 �INANCE -1 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9033 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9033 Customer No. Ord No PO Number Currency Terms Due Date 5314 10095 USD NET30 01/02/M10 Date Description Units Rate Extended Price GUAP Support 1 8,189.67 8,189.67 Accounts Receivable Support 1 1,671.92 1,871.92 Human Resources Support 1 4,211.83 4,211.83 Fixed Assets Support 1 2,807.89 2,807.89 Data Dictionaries Support 1 350.99 350.99 Position Budgeting Support 1 1,169.95 1,169.95 Project Accounting Support 1 3,743.85 3.743.85 Purchasing Support 1 1,403.94 1,403.94 Budget Preparation Support 1 2,807.89 2,807.89 Tyler Online Training Center - 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 Payroll Support 1 7,019,72 7,019.72 Requisitions Support 1 935.96 935.96 Remittance: Tyler Technologies, Inc . $111111 'wn 4tyler P. Dallllas, TX 752677-8168 Date Page 20861 12/03/2009 2 of 2 • technologies Questions: Phone: 207-781-2260 Toll -free: 1-800-772-2260 Email: munis.accounting@tylertech.com Fax: 207-781-2459(Accounting Dept) Bill To: City of Temecula Ship To: City of Temecula Accounts Payable Accounts Payable PO BOX 9033 PO BOX 9033 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9033 TEMECULA, CA 92589-9033 Customer No. Ord No PO Number Currency Terms Due Date 5314 10095 USD NET30 01/02/2010 Date Description Units Rate Extended Price Subtotal 36,013.61 Sales Tax 0.00 Invoice Total 36,013.61 Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Agreement for Library Operations Services at the Temecula Public Library between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside PREPARED BY: Cathy McCarthy, Community Services Superintendent RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the two year Agreement for Library Operations Services at the Temecula Public Library between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside for an annual amount not to exceed $180,000. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Public Library opened in December of 2006. The library facility has been well received by the community and has one of the largest circulations in Riverside County. Since the opening of the library, the City has been in contract with Riverside County to provide library staffing, collections management and a variety of other services through their contract with Library Systems and Services, Inc. (LSSI). After several discussions with County library staff and administration, City staff has negotiated a new library agreement that provides ease in implementation and better clarification of services provided. The new agreement would provide library services at the Temecula Public Library from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011. The two year agreement will continue to provide the existing level of library services at 63 hours per week. The City of Temecula will reimburse the County for library operating costs in excess of 40 hours per week. Through our negotiations with the County of Riverside, the City has agreed to pay $140 per hour for the additional 23 hours per week of library operations. This amount is equivalent to $167,440, however shall not exceed $180,000 in a given fiscal year. The County of Riverside provides great library services for our community through their contract with LSSI. We estimate the Temecula Public Library has a monthly circulation of approximately 70,000 items. This in addition to the Grace Mellman Library accounts for approximately 25% of the County libraries circulation. This agreement will provide quality library operations, programs and services through June 2011 FISCAL IMPACT: to exceed $180,000. for FY 09-10. This agreement will provide library services for an annual amount not Sufficient funds have been included in the LibraryAnnual Operating Budget ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENTFOR LIBRARY OPERATIONS SERVICES AT THE TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of July 1, 2009, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the County of Riverside ("County"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2009, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2011 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. County shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. County shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE. County shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. County shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of County hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. City agrees to pay County on a semi-annual basis. City agrees to pay County one hundred and forty dollars ($140) per hour for every hour exceeding forty (40) hours per week of library operations. In no event shall the total payment to County exceed one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180,000) annually unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. County shall submit invoices on a semi-annual basis for hours of library services performed. Semi-annual periods shall be July 1 through December 31 and January 1 through June 30 of each fiscal year. Invoices shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of the close of a semi-annual billing period. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. Payment shall represent City's total cash contribution to County for the operations of the Temecula Public Library. If City disputes any of County's fees it shall give written notice providing detail to County within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. b. County 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. County shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and County at the time City's written authorization is given to County for the performance of said services. C. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of this Agreement but in no event shall the total sum of this Agreement exceed $180,000 annually or the amount approved by City Council. Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. 1 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. City or County may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon other party at least one hundred and twenty (120) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, County shall cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If either party 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, City shall pay to County the actual value of every hour exceeding forty (40) hours per week up to the time of termination. Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Section, County shall submit an invoice to City pursuant to Section 4. C. In the event of non-payment by the City as required in Section 4, the County may terminate the contract thirty (30) days after the payment is due. 6. DEFAULT OF COUNTY. a. County's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that County is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating County for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to County. If such failure by County to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond County's control, and without fault or negligence of County, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that County is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve County with written notice of the default. County shall have (10) business days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that County fails to cure its default within such period of time, 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. County 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 identified and readily accessible. County shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such records, and shall give City the right to examine and audit said 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. 2 8. INDEMNIFICATION. a. City agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless County, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which County, 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 City's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, or which may arise from the ownership of the Property, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of County. b. County agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which 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 County's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of City. 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. a. County is and shall at all times remain as to City a wholly independent contractor. County's personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of County shall at all times be under County's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of County or any of County's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. County 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 City. County shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatsoever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to County in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to County as provided in this Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to County for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to County for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 10. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. County 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. County shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of County to comply with this section. 11. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. a. All information gained by County in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by County without City's prior written authorization. County, 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 City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided County gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 3 b. County shall promptly notify City should County, 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 City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent County and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. County agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by County. 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. 12. 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 County: County of Riverside 3499 10`h Street, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Cultural Services Manager 13. ASSIGNMENT. County shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of City. Upon termination of this Agreement, County'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 County. 14. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, County shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 15. GOVERNING LAW. City and County 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. 4 16. 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 County, or County's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The County hereby warrants and represents to 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 County or County's sub -contractors on this project. County further agrees to notify City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 17. 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, including Agreement for Library Operations Services at the Temecula Public Library between the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside dated November 14, 2006, 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. 18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of County warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of County and has the authority to bind County to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 19. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. No person or entity shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement (either express or implied) is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other than County, City, and their respective successors and assigns, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. 5 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, MMC, City Clerk Approved As to Form: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Chair, Board of Supervisors Attest: Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Deputy Approved As to Form: Pamela Walls County Counsel Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Deputy County Counsel 6 EXHIBIT A SERVICES AND TASKS TO BE PERFORMED All the following services, duties and tasks described in this Exhibit A shall be performed with regard to the Temecula Public Library, located at 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA 92592. 1. STAFFING. A. Library Staff. County shall provide an adequate number of professional library staff persons for the efficient and effective operations of the Temecula Public Library. County shall have the authority to hire the Temecula Public Library staff. City and County may review and alter the number and classification of staff persons from time to time for the effective operation of the Temecula Public Library. In the event that City is dissatisfied with the performance of a library staff employee, City and County shall work together to resolve the matter in a manner that is mutually acceptable. County currently provides library staff and library services through a separate agreement with Library Systems and Services, Inc. ("LSSI"). City acknowledges and agrees that staff and other services shall be provided to the Temecula Public Library through the County's agreement with LSSI. The Temecula Public Library Manager and the Temecula Community Services Director or his or her designee shall meet regularly to exchange information, pertaining to the day to day operation of the library, including but not limited to maintenance and custodial issues, information systems, library supply needs, Friends of the Temecula Library and to provide status updates regarding the library and facility operations of the Temecula Public Library. Issues pertaining to library policy and library contracts and agreements shall be referred to the Zone Manager for the Mid -South Zone. B. Technology Homework Center. County shall provide a three -tenths (0.3) full- time equivalent employee to provide assistance in the Technology Homework Center. The Technology Homework Center's employee(s) shall be classified as referenced in the Joint Use Cooperative Agreement between the County of Riverside, the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSD") and the City of Temecula for the Joint Use of Facilities Located at the Temecula Public Library, dated March 18, 2003. County shall work with the TVUSD and City to provide, as necessary, additional employees, volunteers and resources for students in the Technology Homework Center. C. Technology Systems. City shall provide adequate staff persons to maintain and operate the technology systems, including, but not limited to, computers, Radio Frequency Identification ("RFID") equipment and systems, copiers, telephones, wireless networks, and teleconference equipment. D. Maintenance. City shall provide adequate staff persons to provide janitorial services, landscape maintenance and building maintenance for the Temecula Public Library. 7 2. OPERATING HOURS. The Temecula Public Library shall operate at least sixty three (63) hours per week. The days and hours of operations shall be as follows: Monday —Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Temecula Public Library shall observe a holiday schedule mutually agreed upon by the City and County. 3. SECURITY SYSTEMS. A. Key Cards. City shall administer proximity key cards that provide door access and support various levels of security to the Temecula Public Library. These key cards shall be issued by City's Information Systems ("IS) Department. B. Radio Frequency Identification. City shall maintain and support a Radio Frequency Identification ("RFID") system, which is the Temecula Public Library's book security and inventory system. 4. TECHNOLOGY SERVICES. A. Patron LAN and Wireless LAN. City's IS Department shall equip, maintain and support the Patron Local Area Network ("LAN") and the Wireless LAN. B. Administrative LAN. The Administrative LAN shall be maintained and supported by Library Systems and Services, Incorporated (LSSI). C. Firewall Separation. City shall maintain firewall separation of the Patron LAN, Wireless LAN and Administrative LAN. D. LSSI will notify the City Information Systems (IS) staff not less than ten (10) days in advance of any planned changes to Library automation / technology support service availability. LSSI will make every effort to notify the City IS staff as soon as possible of any immediate situations that require a system reset or that will impact the Temecula Public Library user community. 5. AUTHENTICATION SERVICES. A. Wireless Authentication. City shall provide wireless authentication consistent with other automated systems within the library. B. Library Patron Authentication. Library patrons shall be authenticated by the Comprise Smart Access Management ("Comprise SAM") System or comparable system. The Temecula Library system shall enable patrons to easily manage their accounts, including adding funds with a credit card through the Internet, at a library kiosk, or through a Temecula Public Library librarian or cashier. 3 6. COMMERCIAL CARRIER SERVICES. A. The Temecula Public Library shall access the Internet with broadband internet circuit which will support the Wireless LAN and the Patron LAN. B. The Administrative LAN shall be supported by an LSSI provisioned broadband internet circuit. 7. VOICEMAIL SERVICES. City shall provide and support voicemail accounts and respond to the Temecula Public Library Branch Manager's request for any telephone additions or changes to users in the Voice over Internet Phone ("VOIF) system. The Temecula Public Library telephones shall be answered by a live library staff member or system approved by City during the Temecula Public Library's operational hours. 8. LICENSING SERVICES. A. Patron LAN and Wireless LAN. Software license products shall be purchased, updated, and maintained by City when used on either the Patron LAN or the Wireless LAN. B. Administrative LAN. Software license products shall be purchased and maintained by LSSI on the Administrative LAN. 9. INTERNET SERVICES. City shall maintain and support the Temecula Public Library's Internet domain temeculalibrary.org. Internet usage at the Temecula Public Library shall be in compliance with the County Library's Internet Usage Policy. Content filtering shall be supported by a Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPK) compliant content filtering system. 10. ON -GOING COLLECTIONS DEVELOPMENT. A. Annual Collections Development. County shall provide collections development for the Temecula Public Library on an annual basis. B. Invoicing Required. County shall provide copies of invoices to City evidencing the total value of the volumes purchased for the Temecula Public Library collection. Invoicing shall include the cost of the volume and all processing by County's third party procurement company. Invoices shall be submitted as collection materials are received and inventoried to the collection. C. Collections Maintenance. County shall provide maintenance of the Temecula Public Library's collections consistent with professional library practices. This shall include, but not be limited to, procurement, processing, mending and de -Accessioning of the collections. The Temecula Public Library's collections shall be developed in accordance with the materials selection policy adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. 11. FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT. A. Ownership by City. City shall own all furniture, fixtures, and equipment in the Temecula Public Library, except for the LSSI equipment that support the following: i. Administrative LAN; ii. SIP2 protocol equipment; iii. Microsoft Windows servers that support Domain Naming System (DNS); 9 iv. The domain controller for caching administrative staff authentication credentials; V. Microsoft Client Access License (CAL) for Office Suite and Exchange Email. B. Maintenance by City. City shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the furniture, fixtures and equipment, except for the LSSI equipment, as necessary and determined by City. C. Maintenance by County. County shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the LSSI equipment used for supporting LSSI staff functions. 12. UTILITIES. All utilities shall be recorded in City's name. City shall be responsible for the payment of all utilities costs, including electricity, gas, water, and telephone services, associated with the operations of the Temecula Public Library. 13. FEES AND FINES. A. City Property. All fees and fines shall be the property of City. Fees and fines for overdue, lost or damaged materials, printing and copying services and facilities and equipment rentals shall be consistent with City fee schedules. Upon request by County and accompanied by appropriate documentation, City shall remit to County the fines for lost and damaged materials. County shall use said funds to replace lost and damaged materials in the City's collections. Any fines collected by the Temecula Public Library for collections belonging to another library shall be used by County to replace that library's materials. County shall maintain a system that clearly delineates the original ownership of the lost or damaged materials. County shall request the fines for lost and damaged materials not less than once per fiscal year and not more frequently than once per quarter. B. Collection of Fees and Fines. Fees and fines shall be collected by LSSI staff. County shall remit all fees and fines to City for reconciling documentation purposes. C. Software for Fees and Fines. City shall provide and maintain software consistent with other City systems for the receipting and reconciling of fees and fines. D. Fees for Printing. City shall determine the fees for printing and copying. 14. FACILITY RENTALS. A. Development of Rental Policy. City shall develop a Temecula Public Library facilities rental policy ('Rental Policy") that includes, but is not limited to, information regarding the areas within the Temecula Public Library available for rental purposes, the equipment available for rental, the rental fees, and the reservation procedures. The Rental Policy shall also set forth which library patrons receive priority for rental areas. B. Administration of Rental Policy. County shall administer City's Rental Policy, assist in the preparation of the rental areas, including but not limited to setting up and taking down tables and chairs, collecting required deposits, rental forms, proof of insurance, and other required documentation, and remit any rental -related documentation to City. County shall remit all rental fees to City on a daily basis with reconciling documentation. 10 C. Rental Fee Software. City shall provide and maintain software consistent with other City systems for the receipting and reconciling of rental fees. 15. TECHNOLOGY HOMEWORK CENTER. City shall determine and schedule any computer classes provided in the Technology Homework Center other than those provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. City shall work with County to ensure that such scheduling of computer classes does not conflict with other programs or staffing needs. Classes may be provided by contracted instructors, library staff or City staff. 16. LIBRARY MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL DISTRICT. A. TVUSD Distribution Site. County shall add the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSD") as a daily distribution site for library materials requested by students or TVUSD staff through the Internet. B. Distribution System. County shall develop a distribution system with the TVUSD to check-out, check -in, and account for all library materials distributed through this distribution system. County shall work with the TVUSD Library Media Specialist to develop a check-out and check -in process at the TVUSD that is integrated with the County system to track the distribution of and protect the Temecula Public Library's collections. 17. WIRELESS TELEPHONE USAGE. County staff persons shall enforce the following policy regarding wireless telephone usage at the Temecula Public Library. Wireless telephone usage shall be limited to the following specific areas within and around the Temecula Public Library: • Inspiration Garden • Front courtyard • Parking lot • Staff offices and staff lounge • Study rooms 18. FOOD AND BEVERAGES A. Concessions. City may operate a concessions operation within the Temecula Public Library. All revenues and expenditures associated with the concessions cart shall be City's responsibility. B. Designated Areas for Food Consumption. City may permit food and beverages to be consumed in all Temecula Public Library common areas, staff offices, staff lounge, and the garden. 19. LIBRARY TAX CREDIT. City's Library Tax Credit shall be used to offset County library services for the basic forty (40) hours per week at the Temecula Public Library and the basic forty (40) hours per week, including maintenance at the Grace Mellman Library located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula, California. S//cultural serviceM brary//emecula library/final agreement 011310 11 Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Parking Citation Bail Schedule Update PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CITY'S FEE SCHEDULE AS TO PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation, the City of Temecula adopted the County of Riverside's parking citation bail schedule which outlines the penalties for parking violations. Of the penalties collected by the City, $3.00 per citation is remitted to the County for Criminal Justice Courthouse Construction and $2.00 per citation is remitted to the State General Fund per Government Code 76000 (b) and (c). Effective, January 1, 2009 Senate Bill 1407, requires Cities to remit $4.50 to the State to pay for courthouse construction. In order to recover this parking penalty surcharge to the State, the bail schedule is being revised to increase all citations by $5.00. Pursuant to CVC 955, a fraction of a dollar is treated as a full dollar when it equals or exceeds $.50, so the $4.50 is being rounded up to $5.00. Five penalties are being adjusted pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40203.5(a) which encourages issuing agencies in the same county to standardize parking penalties. This adjustment will bring the City of Temecula's parking penalties in line with other local municipalities. In addition to updating parking citation penalties, the updated bail schedule has an escalation schedule which outlines the penalties for late payment. The updated escalation schedule is now similar to other local municipalities. The schedule consists of a courtesy notice mailed 22 days after the initial citation. If the citation is not paid within 15 days of the courtesy notice, the penalty will be doubled, with the additional "late penalty" not to exceed $80.00. If the citation is not paid within 60 days, a DMV hold is placed on the vehicle and the $3.00 charge for that hold is also added to the penalty amount. The DMV hold was placed in the past, but the City was not recovering the fee for that placement. With adoption of this resolution the updates for this bail schedule will take effect immediately. FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that the changes to the bail schedule will result in an additional $90,000 for the fiscal year, of which 95% of that increase will be from late penalties. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Exhibit A — Parking Penalty and Bail Schedule RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CITY'S FEE SCHEDULE AS TO PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. California Vehicle Code Section 40203.5(a) provides that the schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late payment penalties shall be established by the governing body of the jurisdiction where the notice of violation is issued; B. Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 40203.5(a), the City of Temecula is authorized to adopt and implement rates, fees and charges for parking violations; C. California Senate Bill 1407, effective January 1, 2009, amended Government Code section 70372(b) and increased the state parking penalty surcharge by $3.00 from $1.50 to $4.50 for each parking ticket issued within the City of Temecula in order to finance construction of critical needs State courthouse construction projects. This surcharge is in addition to the $3.00 penalty fees required to be remitted to the County for Criminal Justice, Courthouse Construction per Government Code 76000(b) and the $2.00 penalty fees required to be remitted to State General Fund per Government Code 76000(c), requiring a total of $9.50 in penalties to be collected by the City to be remitted to the County and State; D. In order to recover this additional parking penalty surcharge, and bring other penalties in line with other cities in the County of Riverside, based on language contained in Vehicle Code Section 40203.5(a) that encourages, when possible, the issuing agencies in the same county to standardize parking penalties, the City hereby revises its parking penalty and bail schedule as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; E. The adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for increasing fines and penalties for parking violations for the purpose of meeting the increased state surcharge and operating expenses of City departments and is, therefore, exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 21080 et seq.) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8)(A). F. All requirements of state law, including California Vehicle Code Section 40203.5(a) are hereby found to have been satisfied. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby adopt the adjusted schedule of penalties for parking violations as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, and authorizes that this resolution shall take effect, superseding all prior resolutions amending the City's fee schedule as to penalties for parking violations and be in full force immediately. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall submit the revised bail schedule revisions to the Superior Court. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of January, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IG1 ►1�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdi1:l4:&1 ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Exhibit A City of Temecula Parking Penalty and Bail Schedule 10.16.030 10.16.040 10.16.040)A) 10.16.042)A) 10.16.042)A))4) 10.16.050)B) 10.16.080 10.16.090 10.16.100 10.16.100)A) 10.16.100)B) 10.16.100)C) 10.16.100)D) 10.16.100)E) 10.16.100)F) 10.16.100)G) 10.16.110)B) 10.16.120 10.16.120)A) 10.16.120)B) 10.16.130)7) 10.16.130)9) 10.16.130)A) 10.16.130)B) 10.16.130)B))1) 10.16.140 10.16.160 10.16.180 10.16.230 10.16.230)A) 10.16.230)B) 10.16.230)C) 10.16.230)D) 10.16.230)E) 10.16.230)F) 10.16.230)G) 10.16.230)H) 10.16.230)I) 10.16.250 10.16.250)1) 10.16.250)2) 10.16.250)3) 10.16.250)A) 10.16.250)A))1) 10.16.250)B) 10.16.260 10.16.320 10.16.330 10.16.340 10.20.142 10.20.170 Violation Description J Parking in parkway prohibited Use of streets for storage of vehicle prohibited Pk veh on street/alley more than 72 hours Oversize veh parking prohibited Unattached Trailer Pkg veh on roadway for wash/wax/repair Parking adjacent to schools Parking Prohibited on narrow streets Standing of merchandise or food vehicles Stopping to sell -time limit Weight limit less than 8,000 lbs Length of vehicle not to exceed 16 feet Days, hours of operation Position on street Purpose of vehicles Noise limits - Food vehicles Operate/park/stand veh where sign prohib Display warning device/disabled comm veh Two warning devices required comm veh Warning device w/in 100' disabled veh Pkg in handicap stall/space w/o permit Pkg/standing/waiting obstructing traffic Stop/stand/park pvt property w/o consent Stop/stand/park vehicle private property/after expre Parking on vacant lot / w/o consent Ignition lock required on pkd vehicles Pkd in violation of indicated time limit Pkg out of space No pkg/stopping/standing certain areas No pkg within any divisional island No pkg on street between property lines No pkg constituting traffic hazard No pkg where designated by signs/curb No pkg constituting traffic hazard No pkg on st/highway while in repair No pkg w/in 20 ft of point on curb No pkg wi/in 20 ft of crosswalk at i/sect No pkg/approach to traffic signal Curb Markings indicating no stopping/pkg Red curb - no stopping/pkg any time Yellow curb- no pkg between 7am and 6pm White Curb - No pkg Exc. 3 minutes 7am-6pm Curb Markings Regulations Red Curb- No pkg anytime No Parking at colored curb Comm veh prohibited pkg private property Standing- For loading or unloading only Standing- in passenger loading zone Standing- in any alley Comm vehicle pkd in resid zone Unlawful parking of recreational vehicle Amount Notice 1st Pei 930.00 +22 days N+15 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $330.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $55.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $55.00 One day prior to DMV One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 21113)A) Parking on public grounds $30.00 +22 days N+15 days +$30.00 One day prior to DMV hold +$3.00 21209)G) Parked in bicycle lane $30.00 +22 days N+15 days +$30.00 One day prior to DMV hold +$3.00 21211)A) Stopping in bicycle lane $108.00 +22 days N+15 days +$50.00 One day prior to DMV hold +$3.00 22500A Parking within intersection $30.00 +22 days N+15 days +$30.00 One day prior to DMV hold +$3.00 22500B Parking in crosswalk $30.00 +22 days N+15 days +$30.00 One day prior to DMV hold +$3.00 22500C Between safety zone and curb $30.00 +22 days N+15 days +$30.00 One day prior to DMV hold +$3.00 22500D w/in 15 feet Fire Station Driveway $30.00 +22 days N + 15 days +$30.00 One day prior to DMV hold+ $3.00 Exhibit A City of Temecula Parking Penalty and Bail Schedule 22500E 22500F 22500G 22500H 225001 22500K 22500L 22500.1 22502VC 22502A 22504A 22505B 22507 22507.6(A) 22507.6(B) 22507.8C(1) 22507.8C(2) 22514 22515A 22515B 22516 22522 22523(A) 22523(B) 22526(a) 22526(b) 24252-A 26101 26706(a)(1) 26710 4000(A)(1) 4462(B) 4462.5 5200 5201 5204 5204(A) 26071 5202 Violation Description Parked blocking drive Parked on a sidewalk By excavation/traffic obstructed Double parking Parked in a bus zone Parking on a bridge Parking blocking wheelchair access Parked in fire lane Parking wrong way 16" from curb rt side tires Stopping/parking unincorporated State Highway (Restricted parking) Blocking hydrant Parked in handicapped space Blocking handicapped space Disabled person loading zone Handicap unloading zone Fire Hydrant (within 15 feet) Unattended Vehicle / motor running Parked without parking brake set/wheels blocked Park-n-Ride (Restrictions) Disabled Access Ramp (3 ft) Abandoned vehicle Abandoned vehicle pvt/public property Gridlock Gridlock (Making a turn on yellow light) Lighting Equipment requirement Front windows tinted / lighting equipment covering Tinted windows Broken/Defective windshield Expired Registration Wrong plates displayed Unlawful display of evidence of registration. 2 License plates required Missing/display of plates Registration tabs expired Registration tab not attached Front bumper / missing Unattached license plate Amount Notice 1st Pei 930.00 +22 days N+15 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $255.00 $30.00 $255.00 $70.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $50.00 $330.00 $330.00 $330.00 $330.00 $35.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $300.00 $185.00 $185.00 $55.00 $55.00 $70.00 $30.00 $30.00 $35.00 $70.00 $80.00 $65.00 $30.00 $30.00 $65.00 $70.00 $30.00 $65.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $70.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $35.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $50.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $55.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $55.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $70.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $35.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $70.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $80.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $65.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $65.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $70.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $30.00 + 22 days N + 15 days + $65.00 One day prior to DMV One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 One day prior to DMV hold + $3.00 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Old Town Police Department Storefront Lease Extension PREPARED BY: Heidi Schrader, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a month to month lease extension for the Police Department Old Town Storefront property to include a monthly base rental rate of $2,205.53 a month and a variable common area maintenance (CAM) charge, with a total annual amount not to exceed $36,000. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula Police Department has operated a storefront facility at 28410 Front Street, Suite 105, since February 25, 2000. The storefront offers Police services to the community, which includes filing copies of Police Reports, collecting fees, community outreach, and crime prevention assistance. The City of Temecula leases the storefront property from the Gabriel Family Trust, James N. Senechal DOT dated 7/28/89, BSW Ranch, a general California partnership, David L. and Susie G. Phares, and Wayne E. Whitehurst through their agent D.L. Phares & Associates, a property management firm. In February 2000, the initial lease was approved with abase monthly rental rate of $1,000 a month. The base monthly rental rate is adjusted annually with a minimum increase of 4% and a maximum increase of 6%. In addition to the monthly rental rate, the City pays a common area maintenance (CAM) charge on a monthly basis. The original lease expired February 1, 2003 and has been extended through January 31, 2010. Due to the fact that the Old Town Police Department Storefront is scheduled to move into the Civic Center garage structure this year, the lease has been converted to a month to month term at $2,205.53 a month with a variable CAM charge. This rate will be fixed for one year. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds existwithin the 2009-10 Police Department budget to meet the estimated payment rates. ATTACHMENT: Lease Addendum C Lease Addendum C This Lease Addendum C is made on January 14, 2010 to that certain Lease dated February 25, 2000, by and between The Gabriel Family Trust and Old Town Plaza, LLC, Lessor, and the City of Temecula, Lessee. The Lessor was subsequently changed to The Gabriel Family Trust, James N. Senechal DOT dated 7/28/89, BSW Ranch, a general California partnership, David L. and Susie G. Phares, and Wayne E. Whitehurst effective April 5, 2007. It is agreed that the term of the lease will be extended on a month -to month basis effective February 1, 2010. It is agreed that the new Base Monthly Rental Rate will be $2,205.53 ($1.47/SF) beginning February 1, 2010. This rental rate will be fixed until January31, 2011. In addition to the Base Monthly Rental Rate, Common Area Maintenance charges will be paid by Lessee. Lessee to give Lessor 30 days notice prior to vacation of Suite 105. All other terms and conditions of the original lease will remain in full force and effect. Agreed to by: David L. Phares Date Property Manager / Agent Agreed to by: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney LeaseAdd end u m C01141 0.wpd Date Item No. I I ORDINANCE NO. 10-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 3.40.040.B. OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST LODGING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FROM TWO PERCENT (2%) TO FOUR PERCENT (4%) OF ROOM RENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sec., (the "Law") authorizes the City Council of the City of Temecula (the "City Council") to annually levy an assessment against businesses within a business improvement area for the purpose of promoting tourism, which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges or taxes imposed in the City of Temecula (the "City"). B. Pursuant to the Law, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 05-16 on December 13, 2005, Chapter 3.40 of the Temecula Municipal Code, establishing the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District in the City (the "TVTBID"). C. The Law requires the City Council to appoint an advisory board which shall prepare an annual report for each fiscal year for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the activities described in the report and which shall make recommendations to the City Council on the expenditure of revenues derived from the levy of assessments, on the classification of businesses, as applicable, and on the method and basis of levying the assessments. D. By Resolution No. 05-121, the City Council appointed the Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board to serve as the advisory board for the TVTBID (the "Advisory Board"). E. In accordance with Section 36533 of the Law, the Advisory Board has prepared and filed with the City Clerk, and the City Clerk has presented to the City Council, a report for fiscal year 2010-11 in connection with the proposed increase to four percent (4%) of the levy of an assessment against lodging businesses within the TVTBID entitled, "Temecula Valley Tourism Business Improvement District 2010-11 Annual Marketing Plan Budget and Marketing Plan" (the "Report') and, by previous resolution, the City Council preliminarily approved the Report as filed. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-01 F. On December 8, 2009 the City Council held a duly noticed Public Meeting to consider the proposed increase in the TVTBID Assessment and adopted a resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INCREASE THE ASSESSMENT AUTHORIZED BY TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.40.030.B. FROM 2% TO 4% AND LEVY AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST LODGING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TEMECULA VALLEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 11 AND FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF." G. On January 12, 2010, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the proposed ordinance to increase the TVTBID Assessment. The City Council afforded all persons the opportunity to present comments to the City Council concerning the proposed ordinance. H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Section 3.40.030.B. of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "B. The assessment shall be levied annually against all lodging businesses in the district based upon four percent (4%) of the rent charged by the operator per occupied room per night. Extended stays, defined as more than thirty consecutive calendar days and those exempt persons as defined in Temecula Municipal Code Section 3.20.040, will be exempt from the levy of assessments. The assessments shall not be included in gross room rental revenue for the purpose of determining the amount of the transient occupancy tax imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.20 of the Temecula Municipal Code (the 'transient occupancy tax')." Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-01 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of January, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-01 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 10-01 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of January, 2010, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 2010, by the following vote: F-Ayd:.�Ko1l1►[MIN diIAdi1:l4:63 NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-01 4 Item No. 12 ORDINANCE NO. 10-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 16.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 15.08, Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program, of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.08.010 Title. This Chapter shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2009." 16.08.020 Findings. In adopting this Chapter, the City Council of the City of Temecula finds and determines that: A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 16 Cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") on future residential, commercial and industrial development. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein as though set forth in full (the "Regional System"). As a Member Agency of WRCOG, and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of a certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study", dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study") prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. Based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing the City's participation in a TUMF Program. B. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study; 2009 Update" ("2009 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 14 and October 5, 2009, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2009 Nexus Study and TUMF R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program. The 2009 Nexus Study in on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein as though set forth in full. C. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 06-04, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential. D. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied. E. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional System. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF. F. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the 2009 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that comprise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. G. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and right of way acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2009 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 2 H. The City Council finds that the 2009 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional System. The City Council hereby adopts the 2009 Nexus Study. 16.08.030 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Class 'A' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class 'A' Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of three stories; (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. B. "Class 'B' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class 'B' Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. C. "Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction. D. "Gross Acreage" means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 3 E. "Habitable Structure" means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate or work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes, and state and local laws. F. "Industrial Project' means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in light industrial and business park zones as defined by Title 17, Zoning, of the Temecula Municipal Code, or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan. G. "Low Income Residential Housing" means residential units in publicly subsidized projects constructed as housing for low-income households as such households are defined pursuant to section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. "Publicly subsidized projects," as the term is used herein, shall not include any project or project applicant receiving a tax credit provided by the State of California Franchise Tax Board. H "Multi Family Residential Unit' means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. I. "Non -Residential Unit' means retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non - dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. J. "Recognized Financing District' means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time. K. "Residential Dwelling Unit' means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi -family dwellings. "Residential Dwelling Unit" shall not include hotels or motels. L. "Retail Commercial Project' means any development project that proposes any commercial use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the neighborhood commercial, community commercial, highway tourist commercial and service commercial zones as defined in Title 17 of this Code, or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan. M. "Service Commercial Project' means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices as further defined in the professional office as defined in Title 17 of this Code, but excluding any residential uses, or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 4 N. "Single Family Residential Unit' means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of eight (8) units to the gross acre or less. O. "TUMF Participating Jurisdiction" means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County which has adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the WRCOG. 16.08.040 Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated according to the calculation methodology fee set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. The following shall be observed for purposes of calculating the fee: 1. For non-residential projects, the fee rate utilized shall be based upon the predominant use of the building or structure identified in the building permit and as further specified in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. For non-residential projects, the fee shall be calculated on the total square footage of the building or structure identified in the building permit and as further specified in the TUMF Administrative Plan. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the resolution, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Chapter, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four (4) years after December 1, 2009. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System identified in the 2009 Nexus Study. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 5 E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following new development shall be exempt from the TUMF: 1. Low income residential housing. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities. 3. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. 4. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to May 28, 2003, the effective date of Ordinance No. 03-01, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of this Chapter, the TUMF shall be imposed. 5. Guest Dwellings, as defined in Title 17 of this Code. 6. Additional single family residential units located on the same parcel pursuant to the provisions of any agricultural zoning classifications as defined in Title 17 of this Code. 7. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit as defined in Title 17 of this Code. 8. Detached Second Units pursuant to Title 17 of this Code. 9. The sanctuary building of a church or other house of worship, eligible for a property tax exemption. 10. Any nonprofit corporation or nonprofit organization offering and conducting full-time day school at the elementary, middle school or high school level for students between the ages of five and eighteen years. G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following: R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 6 1. Regional Tier a. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated with the arterial component based 2009 Nexus Study for the Regional System. WRCOG staff must pre - approve any credit agreements that deviate from the standard WRCOG approved format. b. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off -site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the City in consultation with the developer. All such credits must have prior written approval from WRCOG. C. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the 2009 Nexus Study for the Regional System or actual costs, whichever is less. 2. Local Tier a. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a Recognized Financing District has been established. b. If there is a Recognized Financing District established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan. 16.08.060 Reimbursements. Should the developer construct Regional System improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation, the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the 2009 Nexus Study, whichever is less. Reimbursements shall be enacted through an agreement between the developer, and the City, contingent on funds being available and approved by WRCOG. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five-year Capital Improvements Program adopted annually by WRCOG. 16.080.060 Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees. A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF and make all determinations required by this Chapter. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 7 B. Payment. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: 1. The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever comes first (the "Payment Date"). a. This section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. b. Fees may be paid at the issuance of a building permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the fee in effect at that time, provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. C. If the developer makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. d. The fees shall be calculated according to the fee schedule set forth in this Chapter and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. e. In accordance with the requirements authorized by Government Code Section 66007, if the fee is not fully paid prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any portion of the project, the property owner, or lessee if the lessee's interest appears of record, as a condition of issuance of the building permit, shall execute an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to pay the fee or charge, or applicable portion thereof, within the time specified in this subsection. (i) The obligation to pay the fee or charge shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the local agency that imposed the fee or charge, regardless of whether it is a party to the contract. (ii) The agreement shall contain a legal description of the property affected, shall be recorded in the office of the Riverside County Recorder and, from the date of recordation, shall constitute a lien for the payment of the fee or charge, which shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property owner or lessee at the time of issuance of the building permit. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 8 (iii) The agreement shall be recorded in the grantor -grantee index in the name of the City as grantee and in the name of the property owner or lessee as grantor. (iv) The City shall record a release of the obligation, containing a legal description of the property, in the event the obligation is paid in full, or a partial release in the event the fee or charge is prorated. (v) The agreement may require the property owner or lessee to provide appropriate notification of the opening of any escrow for the sale of the property for which the building permit was issued and to provide in the escrow instructions that the fee or charge be paid to the local agency imposing the same from the sale proceeds in escrow prior to disbursing proceeds to the seller. 2. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Chapter, not the date when this Chapter was initially adopted by Ordinance No. 10-02. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. 3. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land and be binding on all the successors in interest to the property. 4. Fees shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG within thirty (30) days of receipt by the City for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provision of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building & Safety, or his or her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 15.08.070 of this Chapter. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 9 16.080.070 Appointment of the TUMF Administrator. A. WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Chapter shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan adopted May 5, 2003, and as it may be amended from time to time. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as it may be amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer's TUMF obligation. In addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to clarify for the TUMF Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF ordinances. B. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1 %) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator." Section 2. Effect. No provisions of this Ordinance shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Ordinance does not create any new TUMF. Section 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby find and determines that: A. On January 12, 2010, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the "Mitigation Fee Act") on the 2009 Nexus Study described in Section 2 of this Ordinance, the resolution adopting the TUMF proposed to be adopted under the 2009 Nexus Study, and this Ordinance. B. At least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2009 Nexus Study, the TUMF Resolution and this Ordinance available for public review. C. At the Public Hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 10 Section 4. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby determines, in accordance with 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"), that the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program as described in this Ordinance is not a "project' within the meaning of Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The Ordinance establishes a funding mechanism for potential transportation improvements and does not approve the construction nor cause the construction of any specific transportation improvements within Riverside County. This Ordinance will have no effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(d) and 15062, the City Manager is hereby directed to cause a Notice of Exemption to be prepared, executed and filed for the foregoing determination in the manner required by law, that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, not environmental impact assessment is necessary. Section 5. Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 6. Judicial Review. In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 7. Ordinance No. 06-04. This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 06-04 provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or not approved by a referendum. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or not approved by a referendum, Ordinance No. 06-04 and all other related ordinances and policies shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective sixty (60) days following its adoption. Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of January, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 10-02 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of January, 2010, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 2010, by the following vote: F-Ayd:.�Ko1l1►[MIN diIAdi1:l4:63 NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-02 13 T'he Regiona'1 System of H 1ghw.ays Arterials - TUMf Network 1m;pro,vements vim 2 4 CENTRAL . NORTHWEST a V SOUTHWEST Miles 8 _J Ultimate Number of Lanes I V 2 Lanes PASS ^� 4 Lanes I �V 6 Lanes 8 Lanes Mid -County Parkway /0\/ 2 Lanes I 4 Lanes Railroad Crossings ® 1- $4,550,000 per lane e 2 - $2,120,000 per lane Interchanges O 1 - $43,780,000 HEMETI SAN `I _ • 2 - $22,280,000 JACINTO m 3-$10,890,000 • Bridges i''N/ Railroads Freeways & Highways E. Lakes & Rivers TUMF Zones Streets & Roads City Boundaries - WRCOG Boundary WRCOG Prepared for TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY 2009 UPDATE FINAL REPORT The Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimeso The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Hemet The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Menifee The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrieta The City of Norco The City of Perris The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The City of Wildomar The County of Riverside Eastern Municipal Water District March Joint Powers Authority Western Municipal Water District Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. DRAFT OCTOBER 1, 2009 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS _ TABLEOF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... LIST OF TABLES........................................................... .......... ...... ........ ............ .......... ____ ............... ...ii ES.0 Executive Summary ................. ........................................................................................... iii ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study .................................................. ......... iii ES.2 Future Growth.................................................................................................................. iii ES.3 Need for the TUMF..........................................................................................................v ESAThe TUMF Network.......................................................................................................... vi ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis......................................................................................................vill ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation........................................................................................... ix ES.7 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY....................................................1 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH..................................................................................................................4 2.1 Recent Historical Trend..................................................................................................4 2.2 Available Demographic Data......................................................................................4 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis...............................5 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF..........................................................................................................10 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels............................................................................10 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels.....................................................................................13 3.3 The TUMF Concept........................................................................................................14 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK...........................................................................................................16 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network.........................................................16 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network..........................................................19 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs.....................................................................22 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System.........................................26 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding..........................................................................................27 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs....................................................................27 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost.......................................................................................28 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation............................................................................................37 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS......................................................................................................39 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements.........................................39 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components.............................................................40 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments..............42 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION.......................................................................................44 6.1 Residential Fees.............................................................................................................44 6.2 Non -Residential Fees....................................................................................................45 7.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................47 8.0 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................48 WRCOG DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 12 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 -Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County ............... x Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County... ...... ........ 5 Table 2.2- Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County..............7 Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County ........... 8 Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2007-2035)* ................. l 1 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction.....................................24 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures.............................................................26 Table 4.4- TUMF Network Cost Estimates..................................................................................31 Table 4.5-TUMF Transit Cost Estimates......................................................................................37 Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2035 Base vs 2035 TUMFNetwork)*......................................................................................................................38 Table 5.1 - 2035 Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone.......................................................................41 Table 5.2 - 2035 Percent Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone........................................................41 Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation.............................................42 Table 5.4- Residential vs. Non -Residential Person Trip Production.......................................43 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share ($2.61 billion)............................................45 Table 6.2- Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share ($1.16 billion)...................................46 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County...............47 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County........ v Figure ES.2 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements. vii Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County.................6 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ............. 7 Figure 2.3- Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County .......... 9 Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County ..... 18 Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) ......................21 Figure 4.4- Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements ... 30 WRCOG II DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 13 ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_ . ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study Western Riverside County includes 16 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Until recently, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the recent crisis in the mortgage industry and the associated economic downturn has slowed this rate of growth, the region is expected to rebound and the projected growth in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August of 2000 the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub -region. The TUMF Program is intended to be implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the results of the second major review of the TUMF Program conducted in 2008 and 2009. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 12, 2009. ES.2 Future Growth For previous versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by WRCOG III DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 1M the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR is responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. With the availability of demographic information developed specifically for Riverside County, the socioeconomic forecasts developed by RCCDR for Western Riverside County were used for this update of the TUMF Nexus Study and associated fee schedule. A major distinction between the SCAG 2004 RTP data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update and the RCCDR data used for this 2009 Update is the change in both the base year and horizon year; from 2000 and 2030 to 2007 and 2035. This shift in the base and horizon year demographic assumptions of the Program carries through all aspects of the Nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 62% in the period between 2007 and 2035, a compounded rate of approximately 1.7% annually. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 111% or 2.7% annually. Figure ESA illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County. WRCOG 1v DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 15 Figure ESA - Population, Households and Employment In Western Riverside County - _... Employment Sector: P.W 58: a Irc1V 9e'al t 5s9.J7J a8c,v".::e I 11 61 ¢, 5521SA i 595019 Household Type: 329e14 Oy �^ ,py QOe .I.d• e• 'C Q.o3 ofp {° hod' Q• � do ES.3 Need for the TUMF The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional SCAG model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel (VMT), total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS Q. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure, particularly the arterial roadways, with the VMT estimated to increase by 55% or 1.6% compounded annually. By 2035, 36% of the total VMT on the regional arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on arterial highways will increase over 5.4% per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future WRCOG v DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 16 congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. RivTAM outputs indicate that by 2035, regional transit services are forecast to provide approximately 27,969 trips per day. This translates into a forecasted increase of 10,358 trips per day or 59%. A substantial number of the trips will be served by bus transit services within Western Riverside County. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer -distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system. ESA The TUMF Network The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. This framework was reviewed by representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders, and endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The TUMF Network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system and on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. Figure ES.2 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. WRCOG A DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 17 The NVE01(p-nal '$y:*jj*o coil LHjjb w*y,* & A ir it co Ir 1 0 1 0 T V iM [IF N e it 1w M r o-m r (9 v o am V - - -------- Fib, 1--ftw= ------- Uftimate Number of Lanes dV 2 Lanes PASS 4 Lanes 11 6 Lanes & 8 Lanes Mid -County Parkway I It E. 2 Lanes CENT"L 4 Lanes NORTHWEST Railroad Crossing s 51, 0 1- 2. $4,550,000$2,120,000 per lane r, 0 per lane N Interchanges 1 - $43,780,000 REMETI bAn (D 2 - $22,280,000 JACINTO z r 0 3 - $10,890,000 Bridges Railroads 0 Freeways & Highways Lakes & Rivers TUMF Zones SOUTHW,+� Streets & Roads City Boundaries VURCOG Boundary WINE ew N Miles 0 2 4 8 The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $4.26 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $3.77 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.54 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $61.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $60.0 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $107.9 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones. The overall result is that 52.0% of the regional travel is assigned to the Backbone network and 48.0% is assigned to the Secondary network. In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, 2035 Base person trip productions from the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) were aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home -based person trips represent 69.2% of the total future person trips, and the non -home -based person trips represent 30.8% of the total future person trips. WRCOG Ali DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 19 ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $3.77 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $3.77 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 69.2% ($2.61 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 30.8% ($1.16 billion) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. ES.7 Conclusions Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development; ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program; ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependant travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.l. WRCOG Ix DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 20 Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue ($ million) Single Family Residential DU 156,745 `. $8,873 $1,390.8 Multi Family Residential DU 194,934 $6,231 $1,214.6 Industrial SF GFA 57,535,808 $1.73 $99.3 Retail SF GFA 21,758,982 $10.49 $228.2 Service SF GFA 105,461,087 $4.19 $442.3 Government/Public SF GFA 39,061,333 $9.98: $389.9 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $3,765.1 WRCOG x DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 21 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY Western Riverside County includes 16 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Until recently, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the recent crisis in the mortgage industry and the associated economic downturn has slowed this rate of growth, the region is expected to rebound and the projected growth in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued rapid future growth projected in Riverside County, several county -wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2035. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement. WRCOG 1 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 22 In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: 1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development. WRCOG DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 23 Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be reviewed at feast every five years. Furthermore, acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the results of the second major review of the TUMF Program conducted in 2008 and 2009. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 12, 2009. A current list of the standing WRCOG TUMF related committees and committee membership is included in Appendix A. In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives, developers, and other interested parties reviewed and updated the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic forecasts developed by the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) were incorporated to correspond with the newly developed Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) that was also utilized for this update. This use of RivTam and the RCCDR forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base and horizon years from 2000 and 2030 to 2007 and 2035. Additionally, the underlying unit cost assumptions were recreated to utilize the most recent available materials, labor and property cost values. Furthermore, the TUMF network was re-examined based on the RivTAM model results to eliminate those projects having been completed prior to the new program base year, and to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County. WRCOG 3 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUNIF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 2.1 Recent Historical Trend Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. Despite the recent economic recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, Western Riverside County continues to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a well educated workforce. By 2007 the population of the region had grown to 1.569 million, a further 32% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2007 with 516,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 35% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For previous versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR is responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. RCCDR subsequently coordinates with SCAG by providing demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts. The RCCDR forecasts are also used as the basis for the recently created RivTAM. WRCOG 4 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 25 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis With the availability of demographic information developed specifically for Riverside County, the socioeconomic forecasts developed by RCCDR for Western Riverside County were used for this update of the TUMF Nexus Study and associated fee schedule. A major distinction between the SCAG 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update and the RCCDR data used for this 2009 Update is the change in both the base year and horizon year; from 2000 and 2030 to 2007 and 2035. This shift in the base and horizon year demographic assumptions of the Program carries through all aspects of the Nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The RCCDR 2007 data were compared to the SCAG 2004 RTP data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2007 data reflects considerable growth in population, households and all employment sectors except retail. It should be noted that the decline in retail is mostly reflective of a revision in data analysis methodology between retail and service uses than any significant change in retail or service employment in Western Riverside County. Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Sector 2000 2007 Change %Change (SCAG) (RCCDR) Population 1,193,862 1,569,393 375,531 31T Households 381,182 530,289 149,107 39% Employees Industrial 140,284 175,571 35,287 25% Retail 74,356 39,576 -34,780 -47% Service 133,567 256,813 123,246 92% Government/Public 39,556 43,954 4,398 11 % Total 387,763 515,914 128,151 33% Notes: - Y2000 Population, Household, and Employment data from the SCAG Finalized 2004 RTP - Y2007 Population, Household, and Employment data from RCCDR WRCOG S DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 26 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Laaaroo- t - t' - 3 ii::O.pY'- " L539.J93 � Fmploymenl Seclon: i 4C'Doo- .— % OSrvv�cc I 75A ago a,�n F i >a ase 133.511 �t Al � M1 �p ry1 a0" 0Y Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the Program horizon years; Year 2030 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update with the Year 2035 forecasts used in this study. Most of the difference between the two sets of future socioeconomic data can be attributed to the increase in forecast year from 2030 to 2035. However, the new forecasts incorporate the most recently available data and account for current trends including the influence of the current economic recession on the rate of growth in Western Riverside County. WRCOG 6 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 27 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Sector 2030 2035 Change % Change (SCAG) (RCCI Population 2,400,017 2,537,583 137,566 6% Households 784,447 881,968 97,521 12% Employees Industrial 278,152 276,782 -1,370 0% Retail 197,494 87,170 -110,324 -56% Service 364,291 595,039 230,748 63% Government/Public 75,729 131,842 56,113 74% Total 915,666 1,090,833 175,167 19% Notes: - Y2030 Population. Household. and Employment data from the SCAG Finalized 2004 RTP - Y2035 Population. Household, and Employment data from RCCDR Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 3,J,^,aOLB- Employment Sectors: 2.40C."7 2.S]75S ,•0 ,.M_ a5mv�cn -. U.ODD- 595M, , I 41 . _ OQ eo^fe 0. WRCOG 7 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update ME Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from RCCDR and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The RCCDR employment data for 2007 and 2035 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality: Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non-residential sector type. Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment In Western Riverside County Sector Year2007 Year2035 Change % Change Population 1,569,393 2,537,583 968,190 62% Households Single -Family 395,409 552,154 156,745 40% Multi -Family 134,880 329,814 194,934 145% Total 530,289 881,968 351,679 66% Employees Industrial 175,571 276,782 101,211 58% Retail 39,576 87,170 47,594 120% Service 256,813 595,039 338,226 132% Government/Public 43,954 131,842 87,888 200% Total 515,914 1,090,833 574,919 111% Notes: - Population, Household. and Employment data from RCCDR WRCOG 8 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 29 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment In Western Riverside County k — - u' Employmenl5eclor: ss, l;e ;., -� 5 .,I Household Type: s95 Cd9 3�9EId x J3l aeC 'A+66,3 10,195, 0 °v WRCOG 9 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 30 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)'. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (62% growth in population and a doubling of employment in under 30 years) can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of the improvements with improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments' fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2035 Base travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivTAM. The Year 2035 Base evaluates the effects of 2035 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2007 transportation network. 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the transportation system in Western Riverside County, existing (2007) and future (2035) traffic data were derived from RivTAM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for each of the two scenarios. The WRCOG ' The Hiahwav Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp 2-2, 2-3) describes LOS as a "quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F), with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG 10 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 31 TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel (VMT), total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS Q. These results were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents and screen shots of the respective results dialog boxes are attached in Appendix C. Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to include all principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were also calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps, freeway connectors and High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2007-2035)* Measure of Performance Dail 2007•' 2035" %Chan a %Annual VMT-TOTAL ALL FACILMES 39.187.718 60.772.353 55% 1.64% VMT-FREEWAYS 24,056,704 32.920.502 377. 1.177. TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT 15,131,014 27,851,851 847. 2.29% VHT- TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 1.362,725 2.385,725 757o 2.10% VHT-FREEWAYS 885.753 1.301,737 47% 1.44% TOTAL ARTERIAL VHT 476,972 1,083,988 1277a 3.09% VHD- TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 540,363 1,049,291 94% 2A9% VHD-FREEWAYS 457,562 704,578 54% 1.61% TOTAL ARTERIAL VHD 82,801 344,713 316% 5A27. VMT LOS E-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 25,847,218 50.001.659 93% 2.47% VMT LOS E- FREEWAYS 20,422,906 31.864.589 56% 1.66% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 5,424,312 18,137,070 234% 4.57% %of ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 277 36% ' Based on RivTAM " Volume is adjusted by PCE factor NOTES: VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT= vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free -flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios. Daily capacity was calculated as ten times AM peak hour capacity) LOS E or Worse was determined by a V/C ratio that exceeds the 0.9 threshold as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG 1 DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 32 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values: VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT- (Free -flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2000 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 21-2, Chapter 21, Page 21-3). The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2007 and 2035, and the average annual change between 2007 and 2035. As can be seen from the RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development in the region will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially in the absence of additional highway infrastructure investments, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users." LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceptable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2003 designates LOS E as the "minimum LOS standard for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways" in Riverside County. "The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality." 2 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF Program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF Program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system. 2 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County- Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2003) Page ES-3, ES-1 WRCOG 12 DRAFT- October I, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 33 The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's fr nsportation infrastructure. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the Western Riverside County system of arterial roadways estimated to increase by 55% or 1.6% compounded annually. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by 234% or 4.6% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2007 and 2035. By 2035, 36% of the total VMT on the regional arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on arterial highways will increase by over 5AT per year. The combined influences of increased travel and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlight the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development. The RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Transit trip forecasts were derived from RivTAM. Consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1, year 2007 and year 2035 scenarios were used to represent existing and future transit trips, respectively. Transit person trips internal to Western Riverside County (both originating in and destined for Western Riverside County) were aggregated. The year 2007 and year 2035 aggregated Western Riverside existing and future transit person trips were compared in order to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The RivTAM outputs indicate that regional transit services accommodated approximately 17,611 trips per day in Western Riverside County in Year 2007. By 2035, regional transit services are forecast to provide approximately 27,969 trips per day. This translates into a forecasted increase of 10,358 trips per day or 59%. INRCOG 13 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 34 RivTAM outputs for transit person trips in the WRCOG region are summarized in Appendix D. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services. While some of the future transit trips identified by RivTAM will be accommodated by regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips will be served by bus transit services within Western Riverside County. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip -making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new residents contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer -distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer -distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter -community trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads - in effect, a return -to -source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit service in meeting regional travel needs, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to the public transportation infrastructure (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip -making in a given area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.). With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable, to residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand WRCOG 14 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 35 is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: ➢ A uniform fee is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. ➢ The fee is assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system. ➢ A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer -distance trips within the region: a portion of the fee is returned to the area in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to the public transportation infrastructure within the region. WRCOG 15 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 36 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK _ 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA, also referred to as the "TUMF Network') does not include the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter -regional trips and a significant number of pass -through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County3. The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build -out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day by 2035. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in 2035. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. 3 Since pass -though trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County, new development within Western Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass through trips. The impact of pass - through lips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass through trips (and other inter -regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan, Phase If - Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination, Final Report dated May 31, 2008. WRCOG 16 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 37 The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Although the TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the Nexus Update, there were no significant changes to the composition of the network that was originally adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. WRCOG 17 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update IN ® X ,e j it (9 U1 all Sy sit a p (9 1 LH i g�h ways & Artter, �1 1(9r W es1(0rLn ER-1vcrs1cd�C c9LUunity Fit re 4,,,1 F Network ways & Highways Boundaries :OG Boundary i low:. 2 4 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance." Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out4, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts (APD - the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area) or zones, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2035. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The Backbone Network is illustrated in Figure 4.2. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3. Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2035). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program. WRCOG 19 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update Er tt e or I q I is cp 1 j 4 — - --------------- S it (V rr M ER _ I Y� 10 r I 11(d e V(gcu Ali Ag . Z Backbone Network TUMF Network Freeways g ways City Boundaries WRCOG Boundary T . . . . . 11 J, N + 0 2 4 r a J A Y A r a Ln Ln J Ln v it s T U M Ln e / I N,71= F 1 1, it r le 4 TUMF Network 7�i Lj TUMF Zones e I . Fr eeways reeways & Highways PASS C. 1 City Boundaries V W W Co R G Boundary RCOG Boundary k, CENTRAL NORTH HEMETISAN JACINTO SOUTHWEST Miles 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)5, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates 6 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses - code 1), suburban (developed residential uses - code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses - code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements. For the purposes of the TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were reviewed to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values. In addition, supplemental categories have been added to the cost assumptions to better delineate 5 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 6 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 22 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 43 the need to mitigate the cumulative multi -species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and to account for the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) MSHCP adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003 states that "each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts." This provision is reiterated in the MSHCP Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Report (David Toussig and Associates, Inc., July 1, 2003) section 5.3.1.2 which states that "over the next 25 years, regional infrastructure projects are expected to generate approximately $250 million in funding for the MSHCP" based on mitigation at 5% of construction costs. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP, the TUMF Program will incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi -species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects. In accordance with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions. Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate, including a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the current revised unit cost assumptions developed as part of this review of the TUMF Nexus. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated. To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Secfion 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. WRCOG 23 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component Type Cost Assumptions as published October 18, 2002 Cost Assumptions per 2005 Update February 6, 2006 Cost Assumption per 2009 Nexus Update Description Terrain $550,000 $640.000 $628,000 co,swc:•:oo cos r,:>m.o- .... Terrain $850,000 $990,000 $761,000 Corsiruct o: cos or,tw M:' -ro .._ Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $1,340,000 $895,000 co mC,"• os ur --o _:O - ....s Landuse 1 $0,000 $ 80,000 $ 000 io couo Landuse 2 $420.000 $850,000 $803,000 o cos x:o Landuse 3 $240,000 $485,000 $237,000 o co sca Interchange ) No $46.500,000 $43,780,000 CO � , -,,cos - Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $23.300.000 $22,280,000 o °r Interchange 3 $10,000,000 $11.650.000 $10,890,000 Interchange $2,000,000 $2,330,000 n/a mo=ro-;--:-r-o-. •: o: Interchange 5 No $2.500.000 n/a r: o - •. Bridge 1 $2,000 $2,350 $2,880- RRXing' 1 $4,500,000 $5,240,000 $4,550,000�- RRXing 2 $2.250.000 $2,620,000 $2,120,000 E.+ ..., , Intersection 1 $300,000 $350.000 $380,000 -1 Planning 10% 10% 107. P ^5 fc�•. _.� Engineering 25% 25% 25% �aa:: cos: o,.o Contin ene 10% 107. 107^ C'COS°°osex o, Admstration n/a n/a 3% _r C+JpSf 'Or, Eoo n/a 5% 5%co�swuc:+cos:• cowMSHCP 'RRXing = Railroad Crossing A peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. Representatives of private development firms and the BIA have continued to participate in the process Program. This involvement has included active at various workshops conducted at critical completing the Nexus update. of developing and updating the TUMF participation of private developer staff milestone points in the process of As part of the 2009 Program update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the 2005 update was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to either remove projects completed prior to the new base year of the TUMF Program (2007), remove projects that are no longer needed based on changes in the patterns of growth within the region, or add further improvements to accommodate additional projected traffic growth associated with new development. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines and were WRCOG 24 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update DRAFT -October 1. 2009 45 subsequently reviewed by representatives of the public and privates sectors at a series of workshop meetings conducted in June 2009. Based on the findings of the network screening and workshop reviews, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections, modifications to project assumptions and to incorporate a limited number of additional segment improvements following further review and recommendation through the WRCOG standing committee structure. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of the TUMF Nexus Update was developed and is included in Appendix G. Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at -grade railroad crossings; 8. Expansion of existing Network -to -Network intersections. All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $3.92 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds. In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total TUMF obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $62.4 million. The TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Program Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 3% of the WRCOG 25 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. The -total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $107.9 million. The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter -community trips is generally provided in the form of public transit bus services and in particular express bus services between strategically located community transit centers. Transit needs to serve future travel in Western Riverside County via public transit bus were provided by the Riverside County Regional Transportation Agency (RTA). The identified public transit needs include transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements to develop express bus service within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter -regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter -regional highway system. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus service within the region were provided by RTA. The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Component Type Cost Assumptions as published October 18, 2002 Cost Assumptions per 2005 Update February 6, 2006 Cost Assumptions per 2009 Nexus Update Description Transit Center $6,000.000 $6,990,000 _$5,655,000 Regional Transit Centers Bus Stop $10.000 $11.600 $27,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade service Capital $540,000 $630,000 $550,000 Regional Corridor Transit Service Capital Vehicle Fleet $325.125 $380,000 -$550,000 Regional Flyer vehicle Fleet The estimated total cost for future transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $166.9 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. WRCOG 26 DRAFT -October 1, 2009. TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 47 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County was asked to review their current multi -year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $270.8 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter -community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter -community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. In the initial TUMF Nexus Study, the cost of existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that operate at LOS E or F according to the modeled 2000 base year volumes. The application of the LOS E threshold is consistent with national traffic analysis guidelines that stipulate LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS for arterial roadway facilities. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the same method applied to estimate the overall system improvement cost. This method estimated the share of the particular roadway segment (including all associated ROW, interchange, structure and soft costs) that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and reduced the estimated cost to reflect the relative share. The adjusted value reflected the maximum eligible under the TUMF Program to improve only those portions of the segment (and the relative share of associated improvement costs) that were not experiencing an existing need and were therefore considered to be exclusively addressing the cumulative impacts of new development. By the application of this methodology, the initial TUMF Nexus Study did not account for the incremental cumulative impact of new development on those segments with an identified existing need. For this reason, the methodology to account for existing need was reviewed as part of the TUMF 2005 update to provide for the inclusion of INRCOG 27 - DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update incremental traffic growth on those segments with existing need. The following approach was applied to account for this oversight in the initial existing need methodology: Identify those segments with an existing need by evaluating the RivTAM base year model networks and delineating those segments included on the TUMF RSHA that have a daily volume to capacity (V/C) ratio exceeding 0.90. 2. Calculate the initial cost of addressing the existing need by estimating the share of the particular roadway segment 'new lane' cost (including all associated ROW and new lane construction soft costs but not including interchange, railroad grade separation and bridge costs and their associated soft costs). It should be noted that where the TUMF network identifies more than one new lane in each direction, only the first lane in each direction is considered to be addressing existing need and any additional new lanes would be fully eligible under TUMF for addressing exclusively future needs. 3. Determine the incremental growth in V/C by comparing the weighted average base year V/C for the TUMF segment (delineated under step 1) with the RivTAM 2035 baseline assigned model network V/C for the corresponding segments. 4. Determine the proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development by dividing the result of step three with the total 2035 baseline V/C in excess of LOS E. 5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in V/C over the 2007 base year, 'discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental V/C growth through 2035 compared to the 2007 base year V/C (up to a maximum of 100%). The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $225.2 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $105.1 million representing 37% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost A total of $270.8 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available INRCOG 28 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update .• revenue sources, these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement needs is $330.1 million. These improvements are needed to provide for existing transportation needs and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements is $4.26 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $3.77 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.54 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $61.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $60.0 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $107.9 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.3 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.4 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level). WRCOG 29 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update +1 The RgiJIm-nIal $y*1t*un ml LHghwa_ys & A it it (V ir i a i - MIM E IN a m m T h 1 orn , p r m w i r tt S CENT y I NORTHWEST Miles 0 2 4 8 '11?' HEMETI SR,, ✓ACINTO Y PASS 4 ..4 Ultimate Number of Lanes n' 2 Lanes 4 Lanes ICE 6 Lanes '.". 8 Lanes Mid -County Parkway /✓ 2 Lanes 4 Lanes Railroad Crossings ill e 1 - $4,550,000 per lane © 2. $2,120,000 per lane Interchanges O 1 - $43,780,000 0 2 - $22,280,000 O 3 - $10,890,000 Bridges Railroads Freeways & Highways Lakes & Rivers TUMF Zones Streets & Roads Ciry Boundaries r . WRCOG Boundary Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates Men.e Ehonac Manl5lo I_I1 .1 $1,09= $1', ory. Men.. Goble Casz Emanoc 'eW $.40V.W0 b?niS000 M. 6 P- ampson FW�l M6nlzz Men 9 Gabon 1._ C M9n196 Men le Gorbonl toll IN '_:N No b-_"3,rW Menlbz MMllee $lnpwn Ald,19.15 064 16?No.No $3ININ Merle. Menlo, Alezrgolz 11—lIMl 0.')P. U bC Men 56 o_P I Hon. I. p Mllrd Manlee wpoN ",1 9n1m1 M6nlzz Nbwpotl Mome o F 61".I "pfgU S ,Nc, Enlyd M6nlzz I..wpMI I_'l5 Mznizz WE b- 'I CCC bnlml MznlzS $Coll I'JIS PRpaS 1U $il°: N }gip:,',".c 9nllal Mbnlez coil Murtlzla II'!I$ 1, of., ) rl ll0 .ntr., Mznizz aP- d Ima...... 11 t, IE2 Elo I'fC entld a 6Y loyeand. 1 I )U' enlral Moeno Vallzy NeSWntllo Il... I '�o0 $1: r". o1c enlral Mo19no Vallzy AloseErdro Namn Mrnzno Pzocn 0l) $]SSL d:'S5'. Cenral Moreno Vallzy M0r5n0 PSaCM1 Glman $prinps dl:. No 1'//.°.I !Iip obi $'i ,"I UUC Millar Morino valley So Co..,Gimn SplY as Pto Azssan,d (] $I)IUI No 'i :F._'o I'l: 5nlml Morino Volley Pzcnz Vislo IronwoW S_0 Vd)2Wp 'r9 [qi Vol., Iplini,—II Pzrr Imnwaae nny., enlral Moreno Volley nnym50e Caclos '_N I.d:4 N0 I.;Gr..0 Myl.WIWI Moreno Volley Perrk 'Mr. .tors Ynoa :.- $14.IoE 41F.4'.1. 5nlyd Moreno Volley PMCM1e P9 Canyon rI o 6!.O:.WO $+0')].ff.0 Ininol Pzrts nl . P6n5 r Iz Gozz 70Y 70 _,4 .NO 9n Val P61 , Yeyilan9 Go9E __ Innol Pert manor eniml P-115 MW{Orinly IH.r 4.55 8.1!1!1Wo 5nir01 P51R5 Pertls HOR5y Ynoa I.. n. I.W b466)WO Mniral en, Pomona Ciln!5ano ^_d'% $5.°4I WO enl101 PPzrtls tlrvs Wev0 050 $p enlral earnPen, HVbvo 11In IS bE ]]d N0 $/.0'_1Mjo znVal 1.TOna I -^_I_. Part5 .d 111 WonInd en"",Pamon5nd PPamono Evans PIdM ^_C3 ].di'.NC 174'92(N 9nlld P$P-J4(41n1 E116 I^li $'-'"IX WO $'""P!NC rt1ml o.r.%d Emanoc P-11 anzrtnann r.,IInz I.IV ae.NO yE.1°. om a V0 UoralMtl Imanc rnps Endo. 47e 1�,. 0 0.i.enlal ,.d Mellz5 na SP 74 ynocciel $15 I3No 115 13.9nTrM IJoroled MW4EMnly Pldel PFIOp9 $_I:':O Wo 1_1^_oc. znirdaralee Pomona ' Pltler Plco O.r] $_ I3Wo 8'__]'a No anlyd UnFl.o.nolea Pomona Poo Pnapz f9t n.60I W0 b4nC'.0 enaa colpolole0 norpor0 P9c z Canyon mareno Pic M era 9n1 5 coW&jr_ Rrnps aP r bs15r ., d 414.. 1d: 9..enlral onncorporalad SllEmanoc 11. _.E 0 $c Normwzxl corona woPa56o Gmnez SFcan '_4o b='I�I9➢]o �Y. "IaNClormwzsl Corna PooLFcoln Calllomb _`.91 $0Corona od amU COIOna Gr6zr SP II DOTFpE53 POn[M1 O$_ $I"!-0.WU bl,_iCpCvilormwzsl Colon. Ger Oomnga,PanCM1 PNlooes 0.( $, _`,NG Pa V, M Paszo Granez '_01 0 Mormwesl Gtlni09 Mo, ARFo1oo Imolwzn _9 1U $c IWmw651 Ply..Idz ARnIIOIP Monnal'o $0 W H.,ill sl Pry Ode AR'nM—M. Alassontlra _0' 1'_-.1".o 'i_G}__. 1.oIIIXI W551 P 5 on onlo Ano PnSr n. Pr.MrS M on MoIlnobm1.nyon :.I. �50 norinwea PNerw. van ooa 11.11.11 e41 40MW I PN-Illde on Boren oalwen Omnpe lzrmcM $3-5F 4CUo 12 sd(YC Nollnwasl Unilconooml6d AISAontlm o .M. Vol. Inane I _J W SO Hormw551 IJnncoryaraletl Neo.nero Vblo Grand, 1-_I5 1:_`6 $o Sc II.Mwell Un hc.noorol.d ealalco EI S.bmnlz Honey JMn or, I,r ).WO BC.P".CtC 7r w orpala =e —Ho rIe—Y Hon NOMw.st Unncalp eo CaIOICO -15v IznzYal Canyon O.M, $?`111 Mormw.51 eorparal9E Calolco Iemzsml Canyon la 5Krr0 :CI $L')'4 C00 1e]x"4 gq Mor w corpam5 o corpolol.tl aril Ln weoern Ho w 153 I4.34 No 'll- Uc Ilamwe5l cOryomTed Han.wn .WU HIXInw551 LIn1no.I,nood SchIly n a16vone Cleveone 0.50 s, onl WO 5'�3°I CCO NOMwbsl cory.i.ed cM19STan A Rzel all 1417.001 Norm —A llnncpryOrol5tl SCll in— AS1rzz1 HOmne, 0:'] V?ei No 8I.161 No Ilormwzsl IJnhcorpo2le Scnikmm Hamn9r 1-1`1 031 $64.]9?NO $6!.]R0.o ERE! Llnnmryoral5tl Scn195TM bt5 Anhplon L'I] $^<:)qNO 43:/4. 12m1531 Vn r—ro.ral9 on iSP-< PMn.,.ye Ao..I [, U '/'_W Coryoralz on P.Uren P5 5 An 5 l`I. N..Wz51 !m , qo..'1 . on I. MocPnpbVtl Canyon WOW 4.41 $I IIOMw531 IJnnEciporaletl Ivan R!nMI OlanpE i5rt0<5 I_15 IP! 70_4!. NO WRCOG 31 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 52 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) E n and Boa.�mom 19Y I.. 0 Pass BZa�Umonl POUero Oar Valley lean )Matzo CCnyon dtn 1.1) $!),I E).w0 PO55 eammont SPT) Pcaz�monit I-lo Mallow _° 61-, )')I CO Pass Unkarywatbtl 'P."'eamVmono mnsla. C.11—le 0.".°. 10 i�, Pass COfpotal5 PO z st_'.I i _`Pass Ilnhl,..ormad Potrzro Ill )91P5aVmOnit "=0? $1,w?00c }II Pass lmDo.ramalStl SP-Ti(Lame Canyon) C.Il Glmns"n., U On Jsell. onoolve, rmol DomSnpom alalz . d 1. C an Jackal. Hemet SP-)d Winchester Weston I,llrmJ an Jaclmo on Jac nb MId Co!mly WOm,n ontlerssln 11.1 !.CGlO di an Jaclmo 3,anJ.l Pomona WImen S.Pdatson 1??. 5s.1'ir. C00 dG l> �v an Jul San 1.1In. Pomona amis—n State 2 2Y 1, ?, W' 11:'. rail on lac Into 3.n manta Pamono Stolz Ion l.rlrlto Pamono Ced.r an jal Son jacinto .Mon. Cedar P9 an).clot. Unn'.m.n.tetl D.Pne'pon P-09lwncnzstzr ?m $, 11? 1. 1.e an Jackal. Unn,.m.aletl Glman Sprnas Pndo. onnasse)n !.9P":wc I:'io":CCfi an I.C.I. Llnn—mmated MCCounty "Idge $i.So,:WO $+.:-0e wC as cob c.1mal5 Pannone,II. 0 OY. an Cme Corpo-I'd SP-d name 717, 5S an Jacinto lnnCarpMalad SP-T%Memel eypa551 aP�)d )Partial Domznt_fon1 __ t'�d`3.wB 1<-.d`l. On Jac nto COIporoted SP-91H6mzt R} a551 3om9na77 951z! 1 .:9'_, 10I'I an Jacnto Unncarpomtza SR)Y )San laeAtlo Bypass) Pomona SP-)d )Pardo) Leo 6)).,IIan $)lo, an Jaclmo Jmm,,, .m.d SP-)') ISMesenanl Giman Sprnas Pomano 1.9'; V-"_,e4wo $_4.`OP000 M Jac Into UnIncOryarateb SPJ9 Wnchbslbrl Oomenlon) reiar 4.9 $?::Il$, .111.11 Canyon a Gabfz P.Ma anyon M." ..0 ..:1XU Canyon La z Pa rw anYon anyon ab mwe9 Lars Elsinore Polrwa Canyon -1: canyon HlH $?d,9'�9(0 l%p WNwzsl MVrtlbfo GN1on Y911h hli Cppp5r Cralt '_de _']d11.DJ0 _'!71: ol MVn to U fan eln Wper r aVbn o 0 o lnwosl rt151O oulon ills ?4._4 .21 al Ml .1. Clnlon 5 n ao Uhwest M1rt1910 k5nch valley (Date) nencneslzrl Memel IQ'� $?:)av_w0 ..)a_cco aanhW631 .,.me'. Mz...wlal JM9n A55( Y5119! Chen rom '_CO $'%,?loco. 6'%.?�m Sa-thwest .-nlota Mznlzz cot) Yzllzr IIs, 0 W wthwzsl Tasl kzncn v...y MCraorila Ynzz 0'A $0 $C ncn alley S55P .: . olthwesl 5y rtbso bet Pan co all omo 0 _,t.l _s. .Owed 15mecplo French Valley PCncno CalllomO 115 ("a") 1°b Ws7Iwo A_ol Aw ao 11myesl oc.l. SP-)'%(WFCn5515r1 .1me s..I som- lzllzr m 717 $15)'%I.wO $I .I'm." WIal IVnaeccm an -15 z51 'd:lda p[p W am Puntly anyon n551 d ,oimwesl wldamar Impn rSnn Palomar PIs Os' $C Ic dtnwPA UnItcorparmed P.enlon SP)9 Eo515rn 11.11 '_4. 51 .O.O $1IX. el C.;emsztl holm Y61tn Bdomr 756 $47 It !0 9 '/ as Ihw951 LNFc oramtl Hbw on Mzn15e Lh tlznbzrazr a17 $C $0 Wthwzsl Unsm...mtztl Nzwpon Lhd5nbP..r 51�79 WFCnzslin $0 $0 WIDw551 pnnmra... IsJ 31J1 1IS Elhonoc 6R'% Ld:J"Si wU lde 11 .11 W1 w551 Vn e.m.al5tl P- Y OSt.-7w-7z/ a 65tbr Par51 d,`s_ I I :I yt .1'?.. ..Imyalj Vnncorporalz Fm Prypossl Porzl _ ol1hV/b3t Unn'm,esa.,J SP-)9 East9m syposs/Anial Vine SP�)'%IConslancel 4.19 $I _"- _ ollhwost UnnCorpo.IPd SP-79 ( Pal eyposLAnzol 3P,)'/(Constance) tam. Pisa I.I.f va",!,, aanhV/bst Unncorywalba SP-)9lEa BBryoSVAnzol SolPH0 1..I.W 1 17 dU!:/GGO onhwest corparas9a SP-)'l JEast5m 11.1s) fitly— Id. a,thwsst Unbcorponate am Ryposs Pola W thwbsI Unncorpomted aP i1W 5115r Inompwn `�w0 lire. a!tnw5sl COrpaaac, a, lwncnz5lzn Ihompwn La Alba altnw551 Un VCOMCMtztl SP)'%IWFcn5519r WAIbo Hunlzr 70 a'C onhwbsl ncoryomted aP 'i Ill P.. M-mats Holrpr. p5 I.Id B WRCOG 32 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 53 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) REA REEi NAMESOOMEN enllalP Men55 PfgpS 5wporl Coll d!.p. 14Gif. 5nlral M5nY55 GOSfr lVanOa L55551 Lone 1A b(.I ICLO 1; i'O iSA: 5n11d Mzn1156 G091S N5wporl JVonllo I_"/ SC 6V 5ntrd Mznllz5 Hdlantl nnllopb HaSn I.W bl'•C;_IMJD HI+,C__[I}i 5nlral Menl zz lR 9n1101 M5n1156 MCCOII iP ]'/IWFC16516r <_C:�.WO 1!.0 5n4o1 MZn1159 M[COII ID15 A�ZIn 19 ".!!{,.WO onlml ASP51 M50 55 4.4.%. EE0 M<m5bMcColl 7E znirvl MZnX95 MVrtKta MCCaIIC PlZwporl '_O:=17o.�O HC 6n1101 MPDXzz MVnK1v Ell, 1 GJntly Canyon _tWznl.11 Morena Vale, CPCNS 1-^_15 HEOCOCY I,°tb'I.1135nllol Mvmno Volley EVCalyptVS 1-_15 ivwnpat5 I.CG1'_<%1_5nlral Moreno Volley EOmTypWs lownpvl5 fre05hY O.!I W zy 5tl5nc aP . �KheeE Snl. Marano valley a[P!s G 5nlyd Morena Volley Hnocock 16c 115 Vkto COYIVS 4.I3 0 b0 onlyd Moreno Valley d—CY an Mtaz4! H rle, Knox D]4 b_':)i_0]D 5nllol Morena VolleY IronwaOtl iP A Pztllantls fi! uSGi G]0 onfrolMoreno alloy CO 'or,, Alzswn m _. A. _ 9nir01 MIX5n0 valley svalle Pla,Yrntlm Yenned, .W571 5ntr01 Moreno Volley La55o119 JOM 1l nrld, Olzonaznn 2,14 $C 1 entml MOATIOVOIky Moreno Scorch Peelle Canyon $P10 I.:I :�]._'10 WO 3I:_0. Zntml Moreno Valley PMwn WOW AleSwntlro 2tie 5VV61.0 $3, 11. bniml MomnDV. A, Nolan POSS Ino'..oO $P_/-0 04:� $o G onfral Mge OV0115 PhSon PasyCEIAPCvrttlw onlorFl Ilonwoo0 $"_31]. 5nllol MOf5n0 5y bchb oEyan 11r,A la nO P5o[ 40, C 2 2by Pz lantl5 .Edra d :/__ _ _ 5nlyd Moron Volloy SVMymSaE ke05rkY 1—, '_6_a $0 $ Znlral PSrtls Ellk ME U(4N1 1-1_15 11,11E. 501ra1 IMA, Evans Pk,cYE10 Noevo LO YJ.%(E.D]C $1:"P= Pomona a_. enirol PZn W!e�vE _ • _%1. = p.0 .ntral P5M5 Evons 0M.Ed5r P..CEO 0.'J% C Hfi ranlroll I., Ps n Polar C CSnlral en, Evan, Pgel MC..n 0,41 $1. o.°Mo $I I` 00 emral Pink Go'atz LzS., Elnanac 1,4 b'_4:".000 11 ilL 5nllo1 Penh Y n 1-_I. oIViY n n ies 0.. 4 call PZn15 arWy n PzrtkElan, I.. 0 v) Warl Penis Moevv 1J, MJrtISta I_/_� S.If-COC $ v'•J G.Q enlml Poll, NVevO MVOKIa DVIIIOP IW H4'.I',,x 9nt101 Plink PIIXzn R. 1.115 li,11, W0 ?dC'S)WO bnl.I Pon, Y.c_fq Indian Indr.nol I.W $--`"%ODD _ 'i or, ctlm , enirolon, PloCona "I WEE.O `.I')I!FO -10 .aC1i 5nlral Pml, iP-Id IMaINbw,1 -^_I•A.`lmmlly F POLL, Ell DO.O 1, 5 bl }I'.]!I HIV 5nllol LInryCOIpOIOtbd PfkP, iP�I4 ProC0151 iMp,pn :m bll JI}WC }II%-" call UnFcu'Pomtoo PllppI ilnpSOn Newport 1,5� 6°.: °<.WD 4°.:9'.IF7 onlrdLInFCayn—otl "S MI V5rinan M.I.COryoIO ,, Par, .-'0.°I NEW COToml.d Moen an/ AP O 5 I.,PIEPCO Po /N I.:- °�I.. enlral rinhla cciced NV5v0 DfinloP M5nYo5 "'.00 $P.0;_To S-li__ o) 5n hal IJEFCOrpOrOlOd PY eon PaWCETAP Conbol C.Ell Moonl Vemon 334 b_1 K. 1_'I renlr01 IlnM1coryvr.ced Sary. Pmv MFz EII6 140 $0 bD zn4ol Iln Furl om15tl PShcontl, San llmo..Can Loc,", -6 $ For.!dn aP-1 Movn llo 4.1 C 0 ovtl NorNW551 Moru Ik Mcr", LES, $r, C NO. -Orr Po rtlpz nbrp NOIhW91t cola— Mcendla ttn ;hor— .1 4 70y EDY 14.I1E WG Mapnola PmpaV 0 0 CW Maanvlla PiT O Ontarb 1.1] V Colon Man GrrnO' Ontarb 0."�4 $2"lED- M1.. wr C0=0 Mon HbtlSE VOIIby PohMo5 0'S $1-11n.COrono Mon Pahrtla5 SPOI a-, $o $ E�..W.11 Carona MORE iP91 S. Grano OEW 414W0 $alor. e, XbtlSn al5y nods D Mcr I5Y PIOEIZna 5 SPHI 0n oY clan Ia d_, 4'_. 4Corona Onbrb 111 EI CMnita I).o9 H3 PE°.WO $3949 Nrn%wz,l IT a _n PVSna NOTW55t Corona OnorlO PNena VS. Mvn 015 $o $0 Ma 51 pp NOMwe,t Yelbpp FARE 0=042$0 ! or w P POV NorXIw651 Corona Ontario Plmpa!n -L jNollhwOld1 PC.co. AVIOC Osrenraon GkNwrl Corona Palroa, OT—n MOF IVI Grancl .cCNOELPrvzr ory O Man Harinwzsl Carona 5 IV i 1 ZE Pwer WRCOG 33 DRAFT -October I. 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) LREA PLAN ALLY CITY '—L PA.' SEGMENITTO ATIL" TOTAL COM I.A.M. W.1 li o'n—I Nor'O PMr a Ma�!nibn1,8 /FC Noni NIXKo I51 Moi!nlbn HOmnbr 0._/� f0 Lori Ngca Id PN5! I-15 144 MIZ .0 b"?'_I ry'fj HPni 1 NO'KO 6m HOmnbr COIIIIXnb 111 1`:)%I.WO I`1'/1.CCC M 1p On um a NIX%w551 NOco CNIIIXnb AIIFpIan bur 0'18 $5.:1�).W0 ':L.1). NOmwzst N«co E"non Pll6' SIP L✓.� 8?._:d.Wo 83__5+. !1«mWz51 H]mnhr anlo Ana Pvzr M all5y 11 NOco a ey I' No'. NOmwzsf PI«co Xbtlzn Vonzy HomnSr IIf M 80 ba !I«mwhsl Morn N«Ko COyOon Xomnzr I,A $'T.W WO 14 L11.WO Nmmwzsf PI«co NOm Colilwnb Nfnplon Lai b0 b0 PI«Inwhsl Horn PNhr Alcnboltl mtlon LN 84➢)OAU $611W Nmmw,isl PNzrsltlz IdN MaM151 Morfn 1.1hol Yng Oi.% 80 $ Po- w P"Mi 5 acapo-] on PI« w .. NnmwzSl PNhmeS Add— SP-)1 AnFplon 1.`d a $o N«In.0 PN5rsN5 MOmS SP-'1 Lbctln Oid $1:':J!: WO Httmwzsl PMhRWh POSno M. SOn10 Ana Plvzr Phtlwootl 0.?L 80 tl Normwz5l P 6 Conym r CCnIral COVnry ..y 0 or PNZRItl9 anYan r551 sTTy Vq V6W '/d _ 0 PS d. Hormwzsl vN6rs105 Canyon Cresl Vh Vlslo AlSsnntlro 0./-" 80 8 Nonni PIv nitlz «IY.n i651 Mar1F Lc�m Sr g Cznlral 0 "onil 1 vionod L-1 Chico ao 19lilsp 60 -19 So North PN6RItl6 C5n1rO1 11-91 Mpanolb 0)( b'_]''_.WO $_']= W Norl PNnidd6 Control AlAdontl10 1P-)1 Ndr. 5A1 P 515tlh Control Von 8!'r5n MOpnOlq ti? 0 0 P« w KOpO o so', Nvinw551 PNzrsltlz ChKaao Spmc�S Co—olo 0..71, 856.5')OWO $_�.'SO WO M«mw551 PNe0do C.A�mab Mon GA._I.0% b_°.O°).WO 6_e, 0o)0.0 Hamwbsl P... kJz Iowa Cznlzl "Itl 8_K..q]W0 l4_-TL' G Plvud5 _ zrslly n '0 N«m wh51i'No J oIM'zF OOtl d° 0 PNzrs z Ann410n SP% 0 NamweslplylPAd W Slzrta SP-11 Inoiana 01'] 80 30 N.W551PN6rs1tl5 LO Sid. Intlbno VKlab 0.]°. 80 bC PNrsltlz L6mon lIn Onew 0 Mi55bn inn zrsly IW 005 80 bG No'mwoslPrvz rSltlh Lncoln O aSnnplon IS`� 0 Nodhw 5rstlo llltOn on P�Srtzn NO%w5s1 PNzrsltl6 Lincoln WONhofpn yKlgb iA? $s1?_GCG loci t PNzrsltlz CnKom v l«b An'nomn 0° $1 W Norl PN6r5106 Matllson PA1 1IXb 0?/ $1^:')6 CCn ]I`:r!. ryii .dn"W"l 11..d. Maonolb BNSFPP L. SKrta .'.0'i ii::'//.Olio SI_. ' Normwzzl PN5151tl6 Mapnofq Labbrta H011bOn _ 0 b0 dC «lnW.' M0... dln r P z Ma on 17.7F70 O!n y 1') 0 C LdY.Ad1 PN515itl5 Monz1 IdP an la Ana 11-r '_0 i0 ilr PIoril l TAL.Pdz Morfn Wm5r rFa Idm LJ`/SP-/0 11 DS]0.W0 V "OCCOC NOFhw551 P".1d. MPsbn in Phdlood L5mOn 0)') 0 b0 North —I P h vzrlooY n nocY .. FO03_ 0 G N«hw55 V511OOY npiOn Poyzwn/ ManlzCio C Iddi P.A..A do, 8O5w-.7MN mull. 7of 0.e� ':_I?. 0 H«mw551 PNhr5W5 Add, Cry51al View V. VklolSw 0:,5 bl'_)'_'.M) 11 _')_!.WO HIXNW651 PNzrsWS rod, V'0V'610 SantlimKY OG'. $'•.=,Cd,WO 8^_.SOi.LCO Ill PNhRWh P6tlwootl lS80n. Wayl Mlszbn Inn LNNhrslty 0.0°� W bG Pa w P 5 nd.d. On PVibn PIX W PNzrsltlz y5! P-% Mapnoly Yzr vNbnitlb lylz! Xolzno wz115 1.W, $0 lPivenod 11Whwo,1 PNzrsltlz yl5r wh115 AnFpion 1.-�`. dE51.W0 4+.P51."'Yn105 CnHzrsliy vztlwoatl SR91 0._?G 80 $ NodinyA,Mv6 0 HOmwz51 vN5r5106 Vt1oY Matllwn WOznbalan Q$^ $0 $ Ngmwesl 6R1tl5 woLlFplon vefgb HzrmoSo C'.OS 8Z3]'_Wo b??]'=W lorlPrvz an P�!Izn —oil N«mwesl Pd-nd5 woatl van Pomn Pe@amour o $ 11or l PNzrsltlz wodo ed'i ".M.b a3> WIL"Too SW PC Npmwosl VnFCIXpIXO1BC MCnboltl aOn 86mortlFOCounly PN6! 1(3?'Si°, 0]p $)_'"1: W0 Na W KIXp«alh ArmsPonp Y, B6moo o o 11 allhy C NOPwz51 IJnnKIXpo"alztl PSIIpOV9 ConPi Goll50!'O POr'Ch Von O!rzn 860iW 11«0lwzzi 'PFC on... tl COnIIL Odlowo Pmch Lil zvinz b0 NaElw5z1 oi...«a150 Condi ZMO'.Id' Wn5vll16'Innn st K«p«a5 005 apo5lw5 cal Canyon 005140 «mwbsf '..c«a«ai5tl El czrtno 1-I� OmarbcwIGin . OntlO On 1.1n.r Jn y P_ HamwzSl Ln1CIXOIXo5O 11.0 o "1 WRCOG 34 DRAFT- October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 55 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) REFP alsi CQY STREIINAME SEGME IFR EEGMEHR0 E iA M MA UMi MF SNAU Corporaz prove11 Un cory0Vn. AmbzrM1 lmon z .d'/ 0 ��0. NoeM1wzst Unncmporalze ..Mo., Lmonnz scnlzkman LW :23JxoNXI NOIMW.It UnFmlporalze Hammel SCMSkman Von. Ann. Prvzr 13 D_VRS/W. Wol N7Mw5 Itt Un7COPOra9 Hammel B914rOV9 Hor0lwzA -zln llzz 000 000J otmwzst Pa. M cmaallaonl5ma mbto lWra1'aq a(l NMHNnNwwormmmwwwS5zss5fl1 nInCopamted toVena VKtb El iobcre000n gwhst orpamtl corpoma Afn 77wz9 nncaomzb Aso Hann Ii5 -,Wo $1'-.]aP`xa LUUnncorpa n yPr-J. Onncam ncorvomlza Lan n95 Efil .1V a0 Hamwa nncarporoned Lonnz Von Pprzn 'e]'_' $I'_Ynl Wo a';--ritt H.rmwzslcp nz Van CazY W Nall!n c OnS by PrarVia, S d5ol5 0 Hartwell Uncl,. 015tl Mal olly1da!rx 3VA. Ana see, 1.11 S, 4so, "0 $II ]5°.0 NaMw951 Unnmrp .18d Noll SnIYSn SPll LAI 0 8 70M-1 [OlpOralStl Mlssbn SP'A S.M. Al. PNSr $0 b TO W9sl UnncarpOralztl _M5!Tingsl Canyon Van n WO NOMlwes1 corparal5e PNSr L'mon'rle Me 0.')`� $0 P. Normw551 Carports 5tl Pools.- San Kmortln0 oily Nolmw5zl Unncorp0ra15tl COI Canyon OnT.I. Irrxcany a!5 $1 411.WO IAIIRO NorNwast Unnc Orporalze iem/iiml Canyon IVsmny oOS Laoos 0Il Wo aC NOIMl .It IJnncorpwal5e TeejCO1 Canyon DOSLO90S aroy 1.10 s,.11 N0 '.Cll :q NOMwSsf Unnc.,a.lz0 izmzscal Canyon L9roy Dawson Canyon Ifl VIII .Ws I-, I1`I.0 N.rmwzn Corparaee temzlc.l anyon Oawlao anyon Is, a:_. !1 �q IIOMw95tUnIc.cl anyon 1- , Part anyon ..dl r})C Hartwell InblOryorot.d let cal Canyon IY Canyon Iralan TlIcI llat .r c pi0 11 HOrmwest Uninconcorated Volley m11nanp MISSbn OdP 10 nlGNwzs1 lancocra.rol.d wnhs,".n Xzmlosa More, o l,df.00 k'1 J".'I�r 11WInw551 Irp Catsrolzb Il -l-na ola... r/PNO Pa. Banong 1. ocean I 11,.4 aC Pass lscnnl. Hp11antl a0 aY Volley w15m1.'in al3 _ Poll ¢onnlp MI_Mlantl SpmpS 5rty atlzy 7.7 VOISy(1411j Pass ll,.noba SO5M Is"l Ap.cn51ro1 _ 60➢5C00 .CC Po55 ¢.nnnp Lb,.F.a55 LFCa2 551 "-01 a0 P.55 Bann. PamsSy I�10 Wihl.nd', JO SC Pa55 Ban. ts Pam59y W15on 1='m H,AX, apmpi io 10 0 ,allP.onnno P 555Y 10 Pa55 BOlnnts . Snn LOY95 l.ntl n551 1.W a10?l]WO IC.-I'CCO P.onnnp aunt Il Hionlone Spmps 1p.c xl_aMOnb Hams I.^3 $0 a Po55 8tsnnnp PamSZY Lnan 0.^_8 a0..Ilf bdB.l');c00 losseannn. lVIM wiw xbaltsna H.mz VluLQ $0 aO a Poll 8shI RN NI M1pMspfn Ol dll Xlpnlontl HOm6 1.01 1.01 1!I4.WO Pass or Pzoamon 1$1 Wnnsy Vano d.. Pa55 P4amal 151 Pn5yman 5n HlpmarW pmpS . 0 0 Pass Pzoscan l 61n bl0 lonespmm '-_d bo 1 PHcAn O55zn I.-mpnns O atlzy al Pass 09OVman1 HipnlVallSaMc,y1,M Wi50l I9tl aLcIsIn"N. al( 1,'.._d.L\]0 %1,.?.OW 1o55 alXXXI Valley dtl HlpM1lan ap 45 P,.,Ile onq 0 V Pa55 ¢z.Umom aY Volley( dla) PzllSylvtsnY .d} 0 Pzavmonl Valley OaYVon blo a50: A.W0 Pass BBOVMo., . OOY VOtl 51CI P.9oVmOat Clly LinitS Cazrty VaY9y 1s1/C5mrOl OVSn &46 3dE 10 a0 W Pass ¢zaemool sy(SIC OaY VOEzv (SICI C09nY V011zy (J S1/Czniml OveA 110 a3.10AU0 95 Pzavmonl PznnsNV.nb Gm lsi all 0.B $I`. ]']I Na $c Pass 09aVnoon dm si P655 PzaVal A 40h C,50 11 Wo0 PaMCmmzm euyanl colmp Lnz Shall 0.9" aC b Pots d soVs e iUs O.A 3i"P5. 0 P. ColYnessl CM19rry Valley POb90, Pa.., .50 V.11,000 a Col a COrylfy P. ryan 1" " :/d.. 0 Passs COIhsS.w 0959iI LOAn Ca9 VOYfi Champbn5 1.5I I/dW0 $'.]4 Pau Colmzw Snpl9ton Oryanl Canal IA, 1.75.WO $10 A. Pa.oIm950 Condlt I.cerl, _ P.ss URIC Orporofzd CM19rty Volley HIMIantl Spr11p5 N cle 0.';i d. V'_WO 11 Y.-_. !InnCOIpOIOIfib Cn5rry VOYzy 11.15 Desert Lawn ido ad'_]f!.Wo Is. IJnhmla-Ad LNZ OaY Canyon OoYV.,A,(Slq on Pzr ortlno Cavnly sl $. if Pass ul Xasor.l ov ey a an --con, ol y.Wo o0C an J,slHSmzl V.y". an JtscF10 -on✓2]a Stetson 10, 0 an Jac.. Hem51 Sane9rsw P,Cro55np Acocb O49 10 i an lol Xzmz1 lvandesson sl.twl PP Crossna W, $0 bC an JtscF10 Hzmzl c. on Menlo Fmlonotl5 IW $2 f, lc on JaMb H9m21 SP-]4 Vhl CoWifon 10_ $0 an Jaclnb Xzm5 SP-4 (RascalPamOn. 0 on J.lHam1 -/ v r brba n m b PC .n Jail 'erne, State Oamzln'poni In-c.. '.1 W an Jaclnb I ... I State Cnambzrs Slhl3on 0.f1 W iC an Jaclnlo HBInh1 State xor'tla EVo-ade I,IA W bL on Jac nb j. e, Folloa BPl W0 0a JO[ n mzl tsn Jaclnb H9mhl Sizib lWaXonl Cal I.fq :41 GC0 $":ii11. .n l.nnb x5me1 warren ESvl.nod9 Dome-nl 4.`11 u.1>f lAo Ilv.'4.. ror WRCOG 35 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 56 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) KLA PLAN LMW ANT REE! A E nto San lOCintO Sp 0110 9 Mo.�nton G I.d'i G/ IO anJOClntO FSplanatl Mamma. 51.15 0 0 On JOc f0 ESPIMotl9 ]0 ]..OWIo an Joc Nfo Santlzrsan Pamana wlana0z 0 .r ie-_On Jac Nlo SP-'J(moor PaTOno an JOc.l. 0b an Jai 5,191ian Jacinfol ]fn5 SP-]4 0 $to I an Jaclnlo SPAY tSan lacNlol Nwln Pomona 11,d ]tn UTTA O }P°(.C�C nlo San Jaclnlo Stan, Pomona Evd_,,ae O $a nlo CnIO ala5 Ilmon apTpS POn[ an jo6nto an J.i WAAL Ontl POn[ Psp 0an Jai an 1c,cintoPOTOna anatl5 nla colpara 5 apr a amzlson 55nb_onl :.. Jnlo llnFcarporofba 11711WY•c—r—, .........a., $0 W fnwbsl LAYS Oma ..ad Lincoln Jolt 17 $G bC bi1nw95 Gmna OI 60de1 GE!' _ 0 Y.W a W111W65t LOY6I... LOY9 Ili !YlcolnP ?.1C l_-141 N0 o!Inwzsl JOYS EISFon, ,r a Pwlmaa Canyon E!ndy Canyon DO awln W551 Lore EI5Io SP-74 tC011iu/Pvenod51 LIS dlY..,. 10 al`.o]°.WC }Il •d]c0 aonnw5st Lai EI5For5 'aP 14(Grand) "-..A SP-71 Orhpal 1:4 $d`/.I COO b?./?+'LOn Wnw55 w aP� Pwb el m z .d OI a Wln—I Mart.. OI o 1_Iran 1"1 COU 1U/! MVrtlblO C011lomd OaYi II`bm Or"a, YSiln i0 50 MVrthIO 15f5Rw1 MVrriZla..11,1., CnZrty 0 FC Pon 1.1—.! NVlmya IP bI P9A0 'dd.1%9S. a M5a MVrtl.d 1.1 SprnaS I]}p.90GM!nMla Iie Namos jO..n MVrtzla L6 NOTOS 1-_ : _' CUU _ O!Inwbsl n510 MV PI610 Ho15p-Pi I -_I. OraOr I.+ o on11W65t .,AiMurtiBIO Ho15PYn, 19115rWn II^IS I,II "I !n andi ML-naia MVPP610 HO15prPas Maraarll0 3P.]'1 Wn,M1iShn for $,?!_nirj 1.!. adtnw551 mi W. Holmzo lzlhrwn cnrion YAiin LCI W Ln w1ll5wcoe Clinion rLP, -A Om.S >U 5 5r50n cne, v.PC,. W Pri 15r11 o!la Mam_aMa 77m6ta Hof Sprnps SR19 15nA,Io 61) WInw551 T,are,ld Oltl nown rain PantllO C011lOmp I15/SP-]Y 1.45 $O aG on.W5A I—L.I. W0.nao T]90mbcn 6ol vY Glbzao 1.', w b0 wz onnsl I5rn5CVla Mcnanao T. Giln.d. PSChanao Poaa Lda $0 6 a bllnW951 Pancno Colllom JB ZrWn vicr fo 1.°..9 ,^-- WI w Nla On< Po o ora _ @nlSllZltl slap. I!. wtnwzsl rliemzc�lol 1 atlnw5n ono SP 11 p5m5(elol Scpan_aa Pooa e5nzrM1tl 51op6 ?.O°� bU difti Wid.ar rri lAf Polgnor Ga] u.!3d. o n/.!SalMk annnw5n Piid..r eAndy CanYan MWon 115 a94 so. A. Jss'.0.l] nnn—L r C5n a Ratter Palpnar d 'J. M G!ndy Onyon - d minwesl ! PoICTar Cllnfon Yblln Wf,., 0]4 $I"_.Jwo $11_1. CO aallnw551 pl� Polona! MM.n Cllnlon.111i (:?A.WO onnwbn oral5tl G1R41 cou 5Pa9 lw'ncn5shp b?941.WC Y.9+<.Nc W1nw551 Nal6tl P+!ifi..ld SI.aA ManIStO Hal SdrFgs Pan, ha C ollfomYs V9 A5910]0 1l'7]W om1 P7RMd afapB C SP-'1 zcVlol ,?0 :J.I.Wo .Ai COra.r.N, 8!n 5 51 a +PP- Iwn,n551Bn AV WINW551 IJnhcardorded RaltAnGd 511 A.d W nn,la Hot Span., $I'/[" a Wlnwbil Un ColpO101Ztl CSntrol Grand Aclanor PEIIN a0!0wzsl corPln` Gmna OtlzPo CSntml S'_40:C0.tl onnwzs _ c rpam5 rs5tn6 anyon Izmbsml anyon awl w corPam50 ntlan rt anyon b. atlJtnW551 Unhfl rpCMTAP M-TrAnd HOT SprngS aP ]' WFcn65t5r PWrtoy 1I. J'I.M 0 Wiw n,wpomh P00 an ol6Po Wnly onnw551 Unncarporat5a 1.m6 . Canyon Ini lna11lmu LOY5 CI N.ICd.CCp411.' m 5 .-Aaminmranon $ 107?1(4C0 msxcr a I.-mo ro 1=n.000 WRCOG 36 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 57 Table 4.5 -TUMF Transit Cost Estimates MR PLAN U151 LEAD AGENCY PROJECT .TAME LOCA;,:,1' u ^ frl 'C x5 nR. Regbna' kiA Reg--: -.•.• le;l V:b b�-✓^f 5i :. •.• Fl1Yf/;.. Re gbna RTA B 5 - '. —',' Z. —_ Nart.wcsl/Ct ll RTA C-111501"e,5 r, Le GoD1, CO 2N,'[C N,;0-es'/Foss WA SIDO Rfjbncl Flyer C, ra'. SR- 60 rr;9CDr'rom 59 Co. Gamin, 45 2A7V'^" 9 e5G•^ Ncl'wcs'15a1 Joclnl RTA 11-215/5V4Reg11',a, Flyer C. pl 121515R 1:<orfticr r. R 'myc;r,SCn -Ir ]] 23,Crp NoltFAesJ5ou?.eil REA I- IS Re01ana1 Flyer Capllol b15 CaGICJ, RJrn SB CO. 1e lemaCu1 19 26752,5 J'761 b Re Qbndl RTA Rcplonnl Fly,; Vol Beet Vorioes robins rnabnwb¢ 92 I/'6W'= r= OIVI 6 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2035 Baseline network in RivTAM and the model was run to determine the relative impacts on traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2007 and 2035 base networks were again calculated for the 2035 TUMF Network scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no -build conditions. The 2035 comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H. As shown in Table 4.6, the VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will decrease by 14% with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the regional arterial highway system experiencing daily LOS E or worse will be reduced to 33%. It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system Increases by 8% as a result of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements. Despite a greater share of the total VMT in 2035, the arterial system is able to more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by 8%, VHT on the arterial system decreases by 6% indicating traffic is able to move more efficiently. Additionally, a substantial benefit is observed on the freeway system with VHT reduced by 5% following TUMF improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced by 24% over the levels that would be experienced in 2035 without TUMF improvements. These results highlight the overall effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. WRCOG 37 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update M Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2035 Base versus 2035 TUMF Network)* Measure of Performance Dail 2035(Base)-- 2035 TUMF Network)— Change VMT- TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 60,772,353 62,457,677 3% VMT- FREEWAYS 32,920,502 32.321,916 -2% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT 27,851,851 30,135, 761 8% VHT- TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 2385.725 2.274.736 5% VHT- FREEWAYS 1,301,737 1,230,030 -6% _ TOTAL ARTERIAL VHT 1,083,988 1,044,706 -4"G VHD- TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 1,049,291 909,428 VHD-FREEWAYS 704.578 647,606 TOTAL ARTERIAL VHD 344,713 261,822 -24% VMT LOS E-TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 50,001,659 47.005,020 -6% VMT LOS E-FREEWAYS 31,864,589 31,321.324 -2% TOTAL ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 18,137,070 15,683,696 -14% % of ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 36% 337. ' Based on RivTAM " Volume is adjusted by PCE factor NOTES: VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT= vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined h'me that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free -flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios. Daily capacity was calculated as ten times AM peak hour capacity) LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds a 0.9 threshold as indicated in the Riverside Countv Generol Plan. WRCOG 38 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 59 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for improvements on the TUMF system, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected residential and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter -community travel demands. The following points bring together this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a current level of 1.57 million to a future level of over 2.54 million in 2035, while employment is projected to grow from a current level of 516,000 to a future level of over 1,091,000 (as shown in Table 2.3). ➢ Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since long-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade WRCOG 39 DRAFT -October 1, 2009 TUMF Nexus Study - 2009 Program Update 2009 Network Costs Adopted October 5, 2009 Cost Estimate IRCTC I'dedly Comdanm Central Menitee MenUee SR44(Pinacate) Simpson 2.49 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 2W 0 $3,127,000 $1.1W.OW $0 $1.152,000 $0 $42MOOD $1.0ro.aoo $546,000 $7,503,000 $7,503,000 Central Menihm Menage Holaad Gabani LM 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Mende. Garboni Scott 1.00 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1.254.000 $473.000 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $314.OW $173,000 $2339.000 $2,339,000 Cenhal MenUee Menifee Smpon Aldergote 0." 0 4 4 a% 1 3 0 0 0 $1,60B4O00 $607.000 b0 SO $0 $161.000 $402000 $222.000 $3,000.000 $3.000,000 Central mmufa. Monaco AldeMate Newport 0.98 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menitee Moran. HavvPM Holland 1.07 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Nowped Goeh MunleM 1.81 0 6 6 80% 1 3 0 0 0 $1,365,000 55151000 Sa $0 N $137,,000 5341,000 S1B&aN $2,M M 52,546.000 Corbel MenUee Newport Murdefo 1.215 Z05 4 6 2 0% 1 3 2 0 0 $2,573,000 $971.000 MelkM0 3o $0 $Zdas.000 $6.213,000 3ZSBZaM $39.104.000 $37,104,000 $0 $0 $2055AM $0 $0 $9N,0N SZ2µON $906.N0 513.13o,N0 $13,130,000 Cenhal MenUee NeWROd 1.215 Merdhe 0,95 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1,19&OM $449A00 50 $0 $0 $119.000 $298,000 $1"ADIS $2220,OM 52,171,00101 Central MnMfoe sea 1.215 Brig a ZN 2 6 4 0% 1 3 2 a 0 $5,12&000 $1,935A00 $2228NIM $0 $0 $2741.000 $6,85ZN0 5293d.M0 541A7MN0 $40,533,000 Central Menifee Scoff Mumeta 1,215 1.94 2 6 4 0% 1 3 a 0 a $4,8821000 $1.842,000 $0 $a $0 ws.W0 $1.221JOIN $6720M $9.105.o00 $9.105.000 Central MenUee SRJ4 maff cws an", 1.89 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $2,W71000 $8971000 31 $0 $0 $23MM $594.000 $327,000 $4.433,000 $4,433,000 Control Moore Valley Ahoo.ndro 1-215 Penis 3.71 4 6 2 60% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,863,000 $2,3B2.oW $0 $0 $0 $186.OW $466.0W S425.WO $5,3n000 $5,322,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Pens Namn 2.N 2 6 4 15% 1 2 0 0 0 $4,270.000 $5A60-NO $0 $0 $0 $427.0W $1.068A00 $973.WO $12.198.o00 $12.198.000 Combat Moreno Valley Alessandro Nasan Moreno Beach My? 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,245,000 $1,591,000 $0 $0 $0 $125.000 $31 LOW $284.000 $3.556,000 $3,556,000 Control Momrw Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs 4.13 2 4 2 0% I 3 0 a 0 $S'lm000 $1.959,ON $0 $0 $a $519.000 $1.298.000 $715A00 $9.6BI.W0 $9.681.000 Central Mareno Valley GOmon Spin,, SR40 Aloomdro 1.67 2 4 2 0% 1 3 3 0 0 $2.100.000 $793.000 $10.890.WO $0 $0 P.M,= $3,248,000 $1,378,000 $19,706,000 $19,207,000 Control Mareno Valley Penis Reche Ynta Ironwood 2.W 2 4 2 10% 1 2 0 0 0 $Z485,000 $3,178,000 $0 $0 $0 $249.000 $621.001) $566.W0 $7.099.000 $2099.000 Central Moreno Valley Perm Ironwood S.nn,...d 0.52 4 6 2 80% 1 2 3 0 0 $i3o.N0 $166.000 $10.890.Wo $0 $0 $1.1oz000 $2755.000 $1.119.OW $16.162.000 $16.162,000 Central Mo.. Va9.y Penn S.nnym..d Cactus 2.00 4 6 2 W% 1 2 0 0 0 $502,000 $6420W $0 $0 $0 $501000 $I26.000 $114.Wa $1,434,000 $1,366,000 Central Morn Valey Pe's Cactus Harley Krwx 3.50 2 6 4 25% 1 2 0 0 0 $6.601.000 58.44M.aW Sa $0 $0 $660.000 $I.650.0N $1.504.00) $18,855.000 $13.951,000 Cordial Memne Valley Reche Vhla Reche Canyon Heacxk 1.66 2 4 2 on 2 2 0 a 0 $Z53D.N0 $2,67&000 M $0 $0 $253.00) 5633.000 $ 1BADD $6.606.W0 55,097,001) Central Pere 11UVC.0 Penis GaetE 0.30 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 a $377.00 $483.000 $0 $0 W $UJIN $94.000 SB6.OW $1.078,000 $1.078.000 Cenhal Ferris Eftwnac Keystone Gout 2.24 0 4 4 34% 1 3 0 400 0 $3.714.000 $1.4020W $0 $4.608.000 $0 $832,000 $2.08L000 6972,OW $1&609,000 $I3,609,0N C.Mhol Penis Ethanac 4215 Sherman 035 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $438.000 $56MOW $0 $0 $0 $"Ooii $110.OW $IW.OW $1,252.000 $1.252.000 Central Penis Ethanac Goeft M.meta 0.99 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1.239.000 $1.SB5.OW $0 $0 $0 $124.01W $310,000 $282,N0 $3.540,NO $3540,000 Central Pems Ethonoc Manta 6215 0.90 2 4 2 a% 1 2 3 a 0 $I.IW,OW $L445.OW $10,890,W0 $0 $a $112M,Wa $3.005.000 $1.347.000 $I9,019,OM $19.019,Wa Cenhal lens Mid-C..My 1.215 Mder CBS 0 2 2 0% 1 2 1 SW 0 $5,718.000 $7,311,000 $dS'PB0,N0 S1,YI20W $0 $5.123.000 $12M7.OM 55.856.000 $9Z322Na 582132110(a0 Cenhal Peals Pens Harley Knox Ramorn0 1.00 2 6 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $Z502.00 $944.aW $0 $0 $0 $25MA00 $626,00(1 $345,000 $4.667,000 $3,393,000 Control Pens Pere Ramona Cihuz 2.49 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 a $3.132,000 $1,182,000 $0 sal $0 $313.OW $783.000 $431.000 $5.841.Wo $5.831,000 Central Pens Pens COmz Nuew 0.50 6 6 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Pens Pers Nuevo Ilth 1.75 2 4 2 O% 1 2 0 300 0 $2.194,000 $2806AW $0 $1,72MMO $0 $3920W $981OW $673.000 $8,774.000 $6.023,000 Central Penh Ramona 1.215 Pend. 1.47 4 6 2 0% 1 2 2 0 0 $1,844N0 $2,30.= S22.200.0110 Sa $0 $2,412.04)(1 $6.031.000 $ZWAOD $37.57&MO $37.508,000 Control Penh Ramona Perd. Evans 1.00 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 300 0 $1,251M0 $1,594'.000 $0 $11M.000 $0 $298,aa0 $745AN $1.58,000 $6,079,000 561079.000 Cenbel Perms Rameno Evans Met Z09 4 6 2 0$$ 1 2 0 0 a $Z62&WO 53.354,000 $0 SO s0 $E620N $656AN 551MOM $7A93A00 $7,493,900 Cenhal Peels SR-74(4th) ISO 6215 229 4 4 0 0% 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $M280.000 $0 $0 $2228.WD $5.570,000 $2228.000 $32,306.000 $32,306,000 Central Unincorporated Etharwa SRJ4 Kmefone 1.07 0 4 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $2688.000 $1.014,000 $0 $0 $0 $269.W0 $672W0 $370.000 $5.013,000 $5.013.000 Central Unincar,00mmal [Hharac Sherman Malihews 0.61 2 4 2 0% 1 3 a 0 1 $770.000 $291.000 $0 $0 $18.200.000 $1.897.000 $4,743,000 $1.926,000 $27,827.000 $27.827,000 Cenhal Unincorporated Gilman Spime Alessandro Bddge 4.98 2 4 2 O% 2 3 0 0 0 $7.574,000 $2,359,000 $0 $0 $a $757.000 $1.894.000 $993.000 $13.577,000 $I0,039,OW Central Unincaparm.cl M.Mea Ramona SR-741Nnacatal 6.52 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 S8. n= $3.090.000 $0 $0 $0 $81%ow $2.047.OW $1'm'm $15,273,0110 $15,273,M Corbel Unbncomeraled MU -County Md., Bdd,. 6.92 0 2 2 OR 1 3 0 600 0 $8169600131 $3,28ZOM W $3A56,M0 $0 $1215AM $3,03MN0 $I'MAT0 $21230,00) $21,230,000 Control Unkcorporded Rameno Ntler NCO 0.97 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $121MOM $460,N0 N M 50 5122.000 $306MD $168.000 52A73.001il 52273AM Cordial U.M.Ommaled Ramon. PICo Bdd,. 5.95 2 6 4 0% 1 3 0 1,3110 0 $14,955AN $51644AM $D $14,976,000 $0 52993.N0 $7A83.1100 WS&UN $49,507.000 $47,7133,000 Central Dnlne.maraled Reche Canyon San Berecinino County ReChe Vhla 3.35 0 4 4 0% 3 3 0 D 0 $11.997030 $3.117AM 50 s0 $0 $1,200.M0 SZ999,0110 511617100) WAINIA00 517154MOD) Cooled Unicorpemled so" Blom, SR-79(Winlundim) 3.M 2 6 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $7.636,000 $2,8620M SD s0 $0 $764,000 $1.N9.000 $Iji Zooa $14,243,000 $114,243,001 Central Unincoroomted SRJ4 Ethanac an 2.0 4 4 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 SO s0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Pozen Grande Uncoln 2.60 0 4 4 0% 3 3 a 300 0 $9,308.000 $2,465.000 $a $3,456.000 $0 $1.276.000 $3.191.000 $1,523.000 $21,219.000 -$681MOOD Northwest Corona Foothill Uncoln CardaNa 2.81 4 4 0 O% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 $a $0 $0 Northwest Carona FOOthM Califanla 1-15 0.89 2 4 2 0% I 2 0 0 0 $1.116.000 $1A27.000 10 Sa $0 $112000 $279,00) $234.000 $3.188.000 $3.188.000 NadhwM Corona Green Mee SR-91 0ominavet Ranch 0.52 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $651,0110 SMADD M M $0 $"Sall $163.000 $148.0110 $1.860,OM $1,21MIM Nodhwed Carona Green River 0omin0ue7 Ranch PaRrada 0.56 4 6 2 0% 2 2 0 a 0 $BSaAo0 51199.000 $0 $0 $0 $85,ND $213A00 SUSAN $2,224,00 52,1911.00111 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Pasco Grande 201 4 4 0 0% 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Ale.andm Affngton Trauhvee 2.21 6 6 0 a% 2 2 0 0 a $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $a $0 $0 $a $0 NMhwest Riverside AWrgton North Magnofa 5.92 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Riverside Adington Magrrolio Al o.nda 2.02 4 6 2 11% 2 2 3 0 a $2.723.000 $2,873.001) $10A901000 $0 Sa $1.361.000 $3A03.001) $1.649.00o $22,899,000 $20,625.OW Nodhwed Rhold. Van Down Santa Ana mva sR-91 3.44 4 6 2 13% 1 2 3 11000 0 $3.7$1AM $4,796,000 $101990.000 $$.760AW Sa $2.Mo.OM $51100.0110 UWADD $MAS7.M0 $30.923AM Nedhend Riverside Van Buren $4-91 MOCMnRbbd Canyon 3.10 4 6 2 4% 1 2 0 0 0 $3,748,000 $41792M0 $0 $0 $0 3375AM $937,0110 UNION 510,706,000 $51191"OM HodMnnM MversW. Van Bumn Wood OeuMekn 0.0 6 6 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 M 30 30 50 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Nelleest Mumelde Van Boren Trauberm Omn,. M1nace 127 4 6 2 22% 1 2 0 0 a $1.249.Mo 51.597.000 s0 $0 $0 5125.0N $312.00 $285,000 $3,56MOOD $3,514,000 Nortlov.0 thurrorpaoted Aleso:mao Tmulwein Yata Grande L22 6 6 O 0% 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO NMhwed Unincorporated Alessandro Vsta Grande L215 1.26 6 6 0 0% 2 2 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No6hwed UM.C.,mal l Ca)oke 8Solumne Hare, John 0.76 2 6 4 a$$ 2 3 0 0 0 52.302.000 $717p00 50 N $0 $284A00 $S76,M0 $302AM 54,127OM $3,573AM NOdhwed U.Smoc' ailed Ca$ako Hmrley John Haag 5.79 2 6 4 U% 1 2 0 0 0 $14A41,000 $18,597.OM $0 $0 $0 51,454OD0 $3,636,100 $3.314,000 $41.545,000 $40.65OAM Nedhwed UnlncemOmfod Ca)ake Haag 1.219 0.28 4 6 2 ITS 1 3 0 0 0 $357.000 $lW.ow $0 $0 $0 =ADD $89.OM S42N0 $666,000 $666A011 Nwlhweat Unincarpaofod Ca)ako 1.15 Temezcd Canyon 0.66 4 6 2 0% 1 2 2 a 0 $62P,M0 511106010111) SIZ280AM M $0 3Z311.N0 $S,772N0 $2AI7.= $34.674,M0 $9A31,000. Nodhwed Unln.."holed Cooke Temezoal Carryon Sa Skin 3.21 2 6 4 0% 3 3 0 175 0 $11,492M0 $3.M.OM $0 $1016.M0 $0 511135110110 33,377,0111) 51.655AN $2Z934N0 322934,N0 Ned vend Unince,emoted. Ca)dco To Sim aSobmde 6.11 2 6 4 0% 3 3 0 0 0 521.874,000 35,"ZON s0 50 $0 $Z182000 $5.Y9.N0 $2,767,600 $38A89.M0 $N.OB9,OM Nedhwed Unfecommoled SchBamen San BernadNe County Hamm. 1.53 2 6 4 0% 1 2 0 2N 0 $3ASIAN %MOM $0 $ZSM,NO SD $616,000 $1.639.OM $111011.01) $14.M.N0 $14,34zm Nodhwed Unlncormeded Schlezman Borden. Sumner BAD 2 6 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 51,252ADD 51,6010N $u N N $12SM0 $313,001) SMSAN $3,576,000 $3A740N Nedhwed Unlncomomied SCMinrnan Sumner Clevefond 0.50 0 6 6 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1.884.M0 $2A19AN $0 $0 30 5188,01111 5471.0011 5429.OM $$,MI.= $5.381AN NOdhwed Unlncorpnaled. SCNbzmen aevefond Asti TIM 0 6 6 a% 1 2 0 0 0 S867AN ST.iNAN s0 N $0 Sa2No $217A01) $1911.000 52A".M 52477.001) Nedhwed Unlncerponaed S.Ne.man ASIeell Mamma 0.27 2 6 4 OR 1 2 0 0 0 56861000 MIXON N M 30 $69Aa0 St72DDD $156,0N $1.961.aN 51,961,0N NOUhemd Unlncarpomfod Schlezmen Hamner 1.15 Mai 0 6 6 0% 1 2 1 0 0 $1.161,000 $1A84AN 543,P8SN0 $0 $0 $4A94,OM $11=.N0 54.643A00 $66.7920100 $66.797.00 NoMmenot Unincorporated! Scblezman 1.15 Mmfim 1.97 0 4 4 M 1 3 0 1AW a $4,9$40110 $1.86RAM s0 511.520A00 $0 $1,647AN $4,119A0D. SIA34AM $25,943,000 $251943.000 Nedhwed Unlncemerated Van Boren SR-M BeReOmve 1.43 4 6 2 O% 1 2 0 0 a $1,794,No $2,294,000 $0 $0 s0 $I79AOM SN2M0 WIND $5.125.00) $2,192 DD Nodhwezt Unincorporated. Van Barra BlReOmve Sonia Ma Mee 3.60 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $4,616,000 $6,774,0001 M M $0 $OSZOM $1,129,000 $I,029,00D 512,90MN0 $51569,000 N.Munl UnlncoOrOmled Van Buren Mockingbad Canyon Wood 4.41 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $5535,N0 $ZOnAN N $0 50 SMAN $IANA00 $11261.001) $15AIl,MD $12345,000 Radii Uninconmealed Van Bumn ponce Tent. 1.215 TAP 4 6 2 O% 1 2 1 0 0 $2368,000 $3,O23.= $43,MAw $0 $0 $4.615000 $11,07.000 $4,9i&ON 570,246,0010 $0,716.00D Pas Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley ll4th) 1-10 137 4 4 a 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pros Beaumont POharo Oak Valley(San Omebe Conyendlln 1.17 0 4 4 0% 1 3 2 3M I 52,93P.MD $1,1020M $2Z2WOOD $3.456,N0 $18.2M1N0 $4.6BBAN $11,719.00 $4."BADD $69,189,OM M. Paz. Bodement SR-19(Be.U.M) 1.10 MaRew 0.N 4 4 0 O% 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $IOA90,N0 $0 s0 51.089.000 SZWAOO $11OBZNO 5151791A00 $0 Paz' Unlcommaled SR-n(Beeamed) Melt. California, MW 4 4 0 01; 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 M M $0 $0 $0 $0 5o 50 Parr thflru m etl Patron, 4M let pA5 0 4 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1,1Sg0N $427,0N $0 $D $0 5113AM SWIM STUAM $2109.000 52109.000 Pmz UilimumomMtl Pelrem let SR-79(Beaumont) 203 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $6,191,M0 $1.92&ON $0 $0 $0 $619,N0 $1,54BAN sel2aN $11ANAN $11,099,N0 Pau Unkcemoratetl SRJ9(Ramb Canteen) California GBmmn Spasms 4A7 4 4 0 O% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 M M $0 so s0 San Jacinto Hemet Oomenlgont Women Sa,deaOM 1.77 4 6 2 0% 1 3 a 0 0 $2.22S.000 sm." $0 $0 $0 $223,000 $556,00 $307,000 $4,151.000 $4,151.000 San Jacinto Hemet Oomengani Sanderson State 2.14 4 4 a 0% 1 3 0 110 0 $0 $a $0 $D $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SRJ4 Wlnchata Women 2.59 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $3.249.000 $4.155.000 $0 $0 60 $325,000 $11I2000 $740,000 $9,M1,000 $7,335,000 son Jacinto son Jacinto MId-Ceunfy Women Sandeaen 1.73 0 2 2 0% 1 2 a 0 0 SZ169,N0 $Z774,N0 s0 M 50 $217.000 $54ZM0 $694.001) $6.196,000 56196A0 a.. J.Cbt. San sm.lnte Ramona Women Sanderson 1.73 4 6 2 OR 1 2 0 a 0 $Z169,M0 $2,"4,000 So $0 SO $217.001 56120aa $4mlom $6,196.N0 $61196AN San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sandmmn Stile Z39 2 6 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $5.997.aW $7.668,000 $0 $0 $0 $00AW $1,499.000 $1.367.OW $17.131.000 $13.661.000 San Jacinto Sin Jacinto Ramona State Mahn 266 2 4 2 a% 1 2 0 0 0 $3134510W $4,278.000 $0 $0 $n $335.OW $836.00D $76ZOW $9,M6,000 $9.301AW San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Mom Cedar 208 a 4 4 0% 1 2 0 ISO 0 $5.225.000 $6,6BLOW $a $1,728.000 $0 $695.000 $1.738.001) $1.363.000 $17.430.000 $17.430.000 tam 2009 Network Costs Adopted October 5, 2009 Network Detailed Cost Estimate Son Jacinto unmco ated Domenigom SR-J91Winchesterl W.,en 3.10 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 300 0 $3,891.000 $1.468.060 $0 $1.728.000 $0 $562.000 $1A05.000 $709.000 $9263.W0 $8,788,000 San Jacelb Unmcmporated GOman Springs Bridge Sanderson 295 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $3,I04A00 $1,398,000 $0 $0 $0 $390.000 $926,OW $510.000 $6,90 ,W0 $6.908.000 San ladnto UnincOmOmted Mid -County Bridge W. 2,35 0 2 2 M 1 3 0 0 0 $29511000 $1,114,000 $0 50 $0 $295,000 SMM0 $6011000 SS,WS,OW $S,W5,000 San Jacinle Unincemorahsi Be.... Bridge Warren 2.35 2 6 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $5,901,000 $ZWJ0W $0 $0 SO $590AW $1,475,000 $013A00 $11,006,000 $I1.Wd.W0 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Byggs SR-191Winchesterl 3.53 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $4A28.000 $1,671,00 $0 $0 $0 $40.3.000 $1.107.000 $610,000 $8,259,000 $8,259,000 Son JeclutO Un6umpmoled SR-79(Nemal Bypass) SRJ4(NOtlda) Domeny0nl JIM 0 6 6 oR 1 3 2 300 0 $12133000 $4,519,000 $22,280,00D $5118L000 $D $3.m.coo $909,000 $4A18,000 $62,453A00 $62,453,000 $an Jacinto UnNcomm.ted SR->9(Hensel Bypa.) DOmenigani Wln.besle, 1.50 0 6 6 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $5.6S2W0 $2133,000 $0 $0 50 $MSAW $1A13A00 $999,OW $10,542,000 $10.542,000 San Jeclnte Unincer,onsed SR-79(So. Jacinto Bypass) Ramona SK-34(Midda) 6.50 0 6 6 01% 1 3 2 0 0 U449AWD $9,249,000 SM,280,9011, $0 $0 $4677,000 ST1.693,001) 56'sn" $M,989A00 $M,9Bym $an Jacinto Unincorymaled S249(Sandenen) Gthaan$polsgs Ramene 1.92 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 2,600 0 $2,409,000 $90%000 $0 $14,936,00D 30 $i.M9.W0 $4,346,000 $1,829,000 $U6208.000 $2/,500.000 San Jacinto Unlnc.,arat d SR-M(Wlnchester) DomeWgoni Kegs, 490 2 6 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $12,310,000 $15.741.OW $0 $0 $o $1,231,OW $3,028.000 $2805.000 $35,145.000 $23.042,000 S.A.1 Canyon lake Gael4 Rafted Canyon Newpod 0.50 2 4 2 0% 2 2 0 2W 0 $259.000 $801.OW $0 $I,152A00 $D $191.aW 5478,000 $291.00 $3,652,000 $2,605,000 S.A.st Canyon lake 2e11road Canyon Canyon Juts Gaeh 1.95 4 6 2 0% 2 2 0 0 0 $2962W0 $3.125.O00 $0 $0 $0 $296,000 $241,000 $609AW $7.233.000 $7,508,000 Southwest lake FMnam R.Rmad Canyon 1.15 Canyon Nuts 2.29 4 6 2 50% 1 3 2 0 0 $1,438,000 $543.000 Mao,W0 $0 $0 SZ392oW $5,930,000 52426,OW $34,989,000 W,989,000 S.ulhwesl Mwdela Clinton K.M 1.16 Copper Gail 2.0 2 6 4 0% 1 3 3 0 0 $612311000 $2351.000 $10,8901000 $0 W $1,312000 $4.280,000 $1.947,000 $21A11,000 $26.M6,000 Souhwest Muutet. Miss. KeBh Coppe,C,all Teebn 4B3 6 6 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 W 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 $0 $0 Southwest Muutela Conlon KeBh TeWen 1.215 0.83 4 6 2 M 1 3 2 0 0 $1A41.= $393.000 =30.00 $0 $0 $2332oW $5,830.Wo $2321,000 $34247,00D $34,267,000 SOelhwest Mudd. MI.. K.M 1.215 Meadawimk 0.95 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 a $939A00 $354,000 50 $0 $0 $94,00D $235000 $129,000 $1,051.0W s.751,000 Southwest Muntta hench VaRry(Dale) SR-y9(Wlnch.sMJ Margarita 1.03 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,296,000 $1,657,000 50 W $0 $130.000 SUA000 $295,000 53,942oW $3,202,000 Southwest Murrieta MeadowlakiMendes) K.W Groton KeBh 2.00 0 4 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $5,024,000 $1.896,000 $0 $0 $0 $5020W $1,256,000 $692,000 $9,370,000 $9,370,000 Southwest Munleta Mendee Scott Water 1.08 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula hench Valley M.ga,Ba ymz 0.91 4 4 0 0% 1 2 a 0 a $0 $0 SD $0 50 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 Southwest T....W hench Valley Y... MUWNa Geek 1.29 0 4 4 M 1 2 1 300 0 $3.240,000 $4143,000 $43,280,000 $3,B56,W0 $0 $51048,000 512619,000 $SA62000 $12,348,000 $64,827,000 S.Wnsmal Temecula french Valley MunlBte C.k Rancho Caft.ta 236 0 4 4 M 3 2 0 to 0 $8,463,000 $1,593,000 $0 $11M.000 50 $1,019,000 $2,548,000 $112701000 523.129.000 523,129,000 Southwest T....I. hench Valley Rancho Ca ,.w 1.15(R.M) 1.86 0 4 4 0% 3 2 2 300 0 $6,623,000 $5,982.00D $222801000 SIMS.= 50 $3211A00 541020W $3,860,000 $54,579,OO) $37,201,000 Sou4b.0 Temecula SK-n(W9ncneste,) Muni Nat Springs Jefferson 230 6 6 0 056 1 1 3 0 0 SD $0 $10.8"Mo $0 SO $11089.000 $2,M M $1.089,000 $16,791,000 $15,391,000 Southwest WOdomar Burly Canyon 1-15 Sunset 3.42 2 6 4 0% 2 3 3 0 0 $10, O5A00 $3,240.000 $10.890.M $0 $0 $2,130,000 $5.324.000 $2,454,000 $34,443,000 $34.443.000 Southwest Motorcar Burbly Canyon Sunset Mulsieta 1.01 2 6 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $2.527.000 $954.000 $0 $0 $0 $253.000 $632.000 $348.000 $4.714,000 $4.714.000 Southwest Wldomar Cfiton Keith Palomar HS 0.55 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Bade. Bypon 2.40 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $3.018,000 $1,339,000 $0 $0 $0 $302W0 $155,000 $416,000 $5,630.000 $5,63D,000 Southwest Uninco,poMetl CButon KaBh Meodoedsuk SR." 254 0 6 6 M 1 3 0 1.2W 0 $9,"I.W0 $3,612,000 $0 $20,736,000 $0 $3,031,000 $2.W.000 $3,392,000 $49.919,00D $47,919,000 South.st Unincerpa,aled New,d Mendee Dndenbeme, 0.32 6 6 a D% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest U.Mso,,m.led Newpod UncienM1mgm SILM(y0nchedm) 3.58 6 6 a o% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 So $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Mn,,ry tad SR-74 1-15 Hhanaa 4.89 4 6 2 0% 2 3 2 0 0 $1,449.000 $2.320,0e0 $2228D.000 $0 $0 $2973.000 $7,432,000 $3,205,000 $45,659.00) $45,522,000 Southwest Whs..mOmled $1J9(Fadem Byp.ss/Wmh1 SR-79(WlncM1aMO Be.] 452 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 100 0 $5.672,000 $2142AW $0 SSy6,W0 $0 $6251000 $1,SSSM0 SIM,= $I1A23,000 511,42JOW S.A"d Uninco,poMed SR-79(faslem type.) BOSW Wn0 406 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 2W 0 $12293.000 $3,830,000 $0 $2304,W0 50 $11460.0m $3,651,000 $1,843,000 $25,386,OO1) $25,386A00 Southwest Bet .... pmuted SR-09(ResleM Bypas/AmoJ Wn, SR-795Coralunce) 4.49 2 4 2 0% 2 3 0 0 0 y6,034W0 $212BAW $0 50 W SWAM $1,709,000 $896,OW $1"501000 $122540W Southwest Unlncemsnatd 5R."(Easbm Bypass/Anne) SIM(Cceience) Smtla RBa 1.14 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 70 0 $3,470,0110 $1.W1,000 $0 $1,152000 $0 $462000 $1,156,000 $SI M $1,891,000 $701,000 Southwest Uninco,pmaNtl SR-M(FasMnBypan/Ama)Sonia Rita paiwtew 1.07 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $5,388.000 $1,69B.000 $0 $0 30 $639,001) $1,349,000 $709,000 $9,659AW $9,659,OW Southwest Unincmpmaled SR-79(Eastern Bypass) EahWew 9alu 1.0 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $4,505A00 $1,403,000 $0 SD $a $451,OW $1.IU,M $591.OW 50,096AN $11,076,000 SOUMwesl Unlncorporaletl SR-79(Eastern Bypass) pale 1-15 C21 0 4 4 0% 3 3 2 200 0 $15.086.000 $31995.200 $22280,W0 $23W.000 $0 $3.967,000 $9.918.W0 $4.367,0041 $61.912,000 $61.912,000 ss, th.l Unlnro onsfeE $R-99(Wincheste,) Beam Themgon Us 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 a 0 $3,096,000 53.959AW $0 SD 50 $310,W0 $774,O0111 $006,0011 $8,045.004 $81845,000 Southwest Unincmparaled SR-79(Wlnchester) Thompson WARse JAI 4 6 2 0% 1 2 a 0 0 $2,275000 $2909,000 $0 $0 $0 $M,= S569AW ssie'uW $6A99,000 $31623.000 Saethwest Bet .... ps,ruted SR-N(Wlnchester) la Alba Hanle, 0.50 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $632,000 $BW,OW $0 50 50 563.Wo $158.OW $144oW $1,1115.000 $7620W 2618 2009 Network Costs Adopted October 5, 2009 H-1 TUMF Network Central Menifee Goeb Juanita Lasser Lane 2.61 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $3,2IIA00 $1,M7,000 $0 $0 $0 $328,000 $819.0W $451.W0 $6.112.000 $5.930.000 Control Menifee G= NewpW Juontla 1.36 2 2 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Houn 1.00 0 4 4 0% 1 2 a 350 a $2512000 $3,212,000$0 $4,032,000$0 $654.000 $1.636AW $926,030 $13.022,000 $13,022,000 Central Mentlee McCall Men'rfee SR 79(Wlnchested 4.45 0 2 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $5.585.000 $2,108.000 $0 $0 $0 $559.000 $1.396.000 $769,000 $10Al2.000 $10.417.000 Central Menifee McCall SR-29(Wnchester) Warren 2.58 0 2 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $3.234,013) $1,221,000 $0 $0 $0 $323.000 $W9.000 $446,000 $6,0nom $6,033,000 Central Venture McCall 1,215 Aspel 1.0 4 6 2 0% 1 3 3 0 0 $1,5420W $5B20W $10,890,Wo $0 $0 $1.243,000 $3.108,000 $I,WI.oW $18,666.000 $18.666,000 Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee 0.95 2 6 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $2.396.001 $9a40W $0 $0 $0 $240,000 $599,000 $330000 $4,469,000 $4,469.000 Central Menifee Munieta enssnac McCall 1.95 2 4 2 29% 1 3 0 0 0 $1.239,OW $656,W0 $0 $0 $0 $17d000 $435.000 1240.000 $3244,000 $3,244.000 Central MenBae Mnmieta McCall Newport 2.03 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 WO 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central MenHee Mnid. Newport Bundy Canyon 3.W 2 2 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus 1,215 Heacack 1.81 4 6 2 25% 1 2 2 0 0 $1,204.000 $2,179.OW $22,280,000 $0 $0 $23981000 $5,996.W0 $2.616.000 $37,173,000 $37.173.000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus 1-215 Towngate 1.00 4 6 2 25% 1 2 0 0 0 $942000 $1,2040W $0 $0 $0 $94,000 $236,000 $2150W $2.691,000 $2.691.000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick 0.67 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o Cenfral Morem Valley Frederick SR40 Alessandro 1.55 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Vale, Heacack Cactus San Michele 2.79 2 4 2 15% 1 2 a I a $2.979.000 $3.B09.OW $0 $8640W $0 $384.000 $961.000 $765,000 $9,762,000 $6,726,000 Central Moreno Valley Heacack Reche Vista C." 4.73 4 4 0 905S 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Va0ey Heocock San Michele Harley Knox O.74 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 IW 0 $932.000 $3520W $0 $864,000 $0 $180,000 .$449,OW $215,030 $2992,000 $2,4I6, 00 Central Moreno Valley Ironvoatl SR40 Redlands 8.46 2 4 2 35% 1 2 3 0 0 $619W,OW $B,827,000 $10,690A00 $o $0 $1.9N.000 $4,448,003 $2,662000 $35.509,000 $35,509,000 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Eucalyptus Alessandro 1.00 2 4 2 40% 1 2 0 0 0 $751.000 $960.000 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $188.000 $171,000 $2,145,000 $2,145,000 Central Morero Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy LW 2 4 2 20% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,005.OW $1,285,000 $0 $0 $0 4101.000 $251.000 $229.000 $2,871.000 $2,8I1,000 Central Moreno Valley La..Re John Kennedy Oleander 3.14 4 4 0 I= 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno Volley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR40 1.32 2 4 2 0% 1 2 2 0 0 $1,I17,000 $2.195,000 $22,280A00 $0 $o $2,400,000 $5,999,Wa $2,619,000 $3I210,000 $37,210,000 Central Moreno Valley Nason Imnwootl Alessandro 2.02 2 4 2 W% 1 2 2 0 0 $1,I75,000 $2268000 $22.280,Wo $0 $0 $2.406,000 $6,014.000 $2,632000 $39,376.000 $3].3)6,000 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Irornvood SR40 0.43 4 4 0 100% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Morero Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor CaMvini honwootl 3.23 2 4 2 80% 1 2 a 0 a $B)I,OW $1,03I.000 $o $0 $0 $BLOW $mom $185.000 $2,317.000 $2317.000 Central Monero Valley Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Beach 4.02 2 2 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Moreno V.riey Redlands Locust Alessandro 268 2 4 2 0% 1 2 2 0 a $3366A00 $4,W4A00 $22260,000 $0 $0 $2565.000 $6A12000 $2.995.000 141.922.000 $41226,O00 Central Morena Volley Surmymead Eetlerak Penis 2.02 4 4 0 100% 1 1 0 0 0 $o EO $0 f0 $0 $0 $0 EO W $O Central Perlis Eli, SRJ4141h) 1-215 1.92 a 2 2 0% 1 2 2 0 1 $2.407,01)) $3,028,O00 $222B0,000 $a $9,100AW 53,329,OW $8,442,W0 $3.687,000 $52.378.000 $52,328,000 Central Pens Evan Placentia Nuevo 1.50 0 4 4 725, 1 3 0 0 0 $LO55,000 $398= $0 $0 $0 $106.000 $264.O00 $145.W0 $1.968.000 $1.968.000 Central Pens Evan Morgan Ramona 0.59 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $144000 $281.000 $0 $0 $0 $74,000 $186,000 $103,030 $1,W8,000 $1,388,000 Central Penis Evan Nuevo 4215 1.99 0 4 4 0% 1 3 0 400 0 $5,W9AW $1,890AW SO $4,608,000 $0 $962,000 $2.404,0o0 $1,151000 $16.024,000 $16,024,000 Central Pens Evora Oleander Ramona 0.99 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Penn Evan Placentia Rider O.SB 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Pens Evans Rider Morgan 0.49 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $621.000 $234.000 $0 $0 $0 $62000 $155.000 $86,000 $111581000 $IJ58,000 Central Perris Goeh Laser Eharoc 1.04 2 4 2 0% 1 3 a 0 0 $1,307,000 $493,030 $0 $0 $0 $1310W $327,000 $180,000 $2,4 ,D(30 $199,000 Central Pens Hanky Knox 1-215 Indian 1.53 2 4 2 0% 1 2 3 0 0 $1.924,000 $2A60.OW $10.890,000 $0 $o $1.2B1,000 $3.204.000 $1.52AW $21,286.000 $21,286.000 Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Pens 0.50 2 4 2 25% 1 2 0 0 0 $136,OW $200.000 $0 $0 $o $16,000 $39,000 $36.01)) $447.000 $442,000 Central Pens Hate, Knox Pens Evan 1.03 0 4 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $2,587,000 $3,208,0W $0 $0 $0 $259.W0 $647.000 $5"oW $7.391,000 $2.391.000 Control Pens Nuevo F215 Mundell. 1.36 4 6 2 0% 1 2 3 0 0 $1.704.000 $2179,000 $10.890.000 $0 $o $1,258000 $3,149.000 $1477,000 $20,658,000 $20,658,000 Central Penn Nuevo Mrmiet. Dunlop 1.00 2 4 2 23% 1 3 0 300 0 $969.000 $3660W $0 $1.228,000 $0 $270.000 $694.000 $306.000 $4,313,000 $4.313.000 Central Pens Placentia 1-115 Indian 0.32 0 4 4 0% 1 3 2 0 0 $929.000 $351,000 $22280.000 $0 $0 $2321,000 $51802000 $2,356,000 $34,039.000 $54.039,000 Central Penis Placentia India, Redlands 1.00 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1,254,0W $4n,000 $0 $0 $o $125.Wo $314.000 $123,W0 $2.339.000 $2,339,000 Cenfral Penis Placentia Redlands Wlsan 0.25 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Pens Placenta Vilb. Earns 0.25 0 4 4 0% 1 3 0 WO 0 $1,892.M $714.000 $0 $3,456,000 $o $535,000 $1.339A00 $606,000 $8,540.000 $8,540,000 Central Pens SR-74(Matthews) F215(mostlyin Perris Ethan.. 1.25 4 4 0 0% 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $10,890,000 $0 $0 $1.089,Wo $2223W0 $1,089000 $15,791,000 $15,791,000 Central Unincorporated Briggs SR-24 IPaacafe) S"vnpsan 2.50 0 4 4 0% I 3 0 0 0 $6128O4W $2.370.000 $0 $0 $o $628,000 $1.520,0D0 $865,030 $11,713,000 $11,713,000 Central Unincorporated Briggs Simpson Newport 1.53 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 600 0 $1,916,000 $I23,000 $0 $3,456.000 $o $537.000 $1.343.000 $610,W0 $8,585.000 $8.585.000 Central Unincorporated Center(Moin) t-215 Mt Vemon 1.50 2 4 2 a% 1 2 3 0 2 $1.882.000 $2A02.01)) $10.890.WO $0 $8A80.000 $2,125,00 $5.313.000 $2,366.00C $33,463,000 $33A63000 Cenlml Unincorporated Efs Post SR-74 2.65 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 a $3,322,000 $I,255.OW $0 $o $0 $3330W $832000 $458.000 $6W5.000 $6,W5.0W Cenfral Unincorporated Mount Vemon/CETAP CondCenter Pigeon Pass 0.61 2 4 2 09. 3 3 0 0 0 $1.0mmo $287.000 $0 $0 $0 $10810W $271,000 $137,000 $1,68I,000 $1,887,000 Central I-Knaorpomted Nuevo Dunlap Menifee 2.00 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 400 0 $2,510,000 $947,00O $0 $2304,000 $0 $481.OW 31.2o4.oa0 1576.000 $8.042000 $8.022,000 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CEFAP Corridor Contarini Mount Vernon 3.38 0 4 4 0% 3 3 0 0 0 $121W,Wo $3.207,000 $0 $0 $o $1,211,000 $3.027.000 $1,532.000 $21,0B6.0W $21,096.OW Central Unincorporated Post S.M. Rosa Mine or. 0." 2 2 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San TanotaCanyon Locust 2.60 2 2 0 0.% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 , Northwest Corona 611, SRA1 Magnolia 4.84 4 4 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Carona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 oS0 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8480,OW $B48.000 $2.1W.000 $8481000 $12,296.OW $0 NWhwest Corona Haden Valley Norco HIB Mcpnky 0.59 4 4 0 0% 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NONh.0 Corona Lincoln Partridge Ontario 3.20 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia 6ih Sherman 0.61 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 WO 0 $120.000 $985.OW $0 $1,I28,000 $0 $250,030 $625,000 $34BDa0 $4.706,000 $4,706,000 Northwest Corona Magna Shani Rimpau 0.39 6 6 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario 1.19 6 6 0 a% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 NWhwest Corona Main Grand Ontario U13 2 4 2 0% 1 3 a 0 0 $1.106,Wo $411,000 $0 $0 $0 $111.000 $277000 $152W0 $2063.000 $1.951,000 Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foofhil 0.24 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NWhwest Carona Main Haden Valey Patrd,re 0.35 4 6 2 0% 1 2 a 0 a $437,OW $558000 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 $109.OW $IW,Wo $1,24B4O00 $957.000 4 Northwest Corona Main PoM1 W SR-91 0.86 6 6 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Carona Main SR41 S. Grand 0.86 4 6 2 0% 1 1 0 0 a $1A75,000 $2.880.0W $0 $0 $0 $108.000 $269.O00 $396.030 $4,728.000 $4J28,000 NWhwest Corona Mcdnley Haden Valley Pomenatle 0.52 4 4 0 05% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NWhwest Corona MCKmley Pramen.de SR41 0.W 6 6 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 L... $0 NWhwest Corona McKinley SR41 Magna. 0.31 4 6 2 011 1 1 0 100 1 $391.0W $11049.000 $0 $576.000 $29.=030 $2.827.00 $9.069.000 $2,932.000 $42.1420W $40.242000 NWhwest Corona Ontario 1-15 ECegAo 0.94 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,186,01)) $1,516.000 $0 $0 $0 $119,0W $292.000 $210,0130 $3,388,000 SIMS= NWhwest Corona Ontario ❑ecdn Buena Wia 0.32 4 6 2 m 1 2 0 0 0 $403,000 $516.000 $0 $0 $0 $4O00 $101.000 $92.OW $1,152,000 $631,000 �. Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Ysta Main 0.65 6 6 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NWhwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg 0.28 6 6 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton 0.32 4 6 2 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $4020W $1,072,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $Iol.OW $14l $1968,000 $IJ68,O00 NWhwest Corona Ontoria Fullerton Rimpau 0.42 6 6 0 O% I 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NadM1west Corona Ontario Rfnpau W5 0.60 6 6 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NWhwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Sherman 1.97 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $B.4BO0W $848,o0o $2.120.11130 $848.000 $1 m'm $12.296.000 SSF NWhwest Corona R Broad Sh. Main (at Grandl 1.26 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 a $1.582.000 $20moo $0 $o $0 $159,W0 $397.000 $3620W $4.534.030 $3.028.000 45 NWhwest Carona River Corydon Main 2.22 4 4 0 0% 1 2 a 0 a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 s Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR41 Green River 0.96 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 a a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NWhwest Norco Ist PMxidga Mauritian 0.26 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $322,000 $122,000 $0 $o $0 $32,01)) $BI,Wo $44,030 $601,aW $601,W0 NWhwest Norco Ist Moun0on Hamner 0.26 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 j... NWhwest Norco 2nd River H15 1.44 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1,804,030 $681,000 $0 $0 $0 $180,00 $451.00) $249,W0 $3.365.000 $2.321.000 NWhwest Norco 6th Hamner CaFRania 1.21 4 4 0 0% 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $10,8901000 $0 $0 $1.089.W0 $Zm000 $1,W9.OW $15.791,000 (t. $15.991,W0 Northwest Norco Arrington North Arington 0.99 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1.22it= $462,000 $0 $0 $0 $122,13W $3061OW $169,W0 $2282.000 $2,282000 NMhwest N. Cardona Arlington 61h 0.98 2 4 2 a% 1 2 0 0 0 $1.231.OW $1.594.00411 $0 $0 $0 $123,O1H) $3oaom $281,000 $3.517,000 $3,511,000" i Northwest Norm Corydon River 5/h 1.46 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1.839.OW $2352.000 $0 $0 $0 $184,01)) $460.O00 $417.000 $5254,000 $5254,O00 NMhwest Norco Hamner Santa And River Hidden Valley 3.05 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $3,834AW $4,903.000 $0 $0 $0 $383.0W Vsir 00 $874,000 $10,95310W $10,953,000 NWMxest Norco Hidden Valley 1-15 Norco Hills 1.52 4 4 0 0% 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Norco Haden Vale, Hamner I-15 0.13 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner 1.20 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1.511.000 $1.932000 $0 $0 $0 $151.000 $328AW $344.00) $4.316,000 $4,316,000 Northwest Norco North California Arlington - 0.81 4 4 a 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Nam River AnchDdtl Corydon 1.14 2 4 2 m 1 2 0 0 0 $1.432000 $1,831.O00 $0 $0 $0 $14&000 $30,O01) $326.OW $4,090.000 $2328.000 49 2009 Network Costs Adopted October 5, 2009 H-1 TUMF Network Nadu,rest Riverside IIt Maket Main DOS 4 4 0 0% 1 1 a 0 0 $0 so, $0 $0 $0 s0 $o so $0 $0 Nathwest Riverside Ind Cnpago 1-215 0.36 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $a $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $a $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SRAI Arfngtan 1.56 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Nodhwed Rive¢de Adams SRAI Llncoin 0.54 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.480.000 $848,000 $2,120,000 $848,O00 $12,296,000 $12,296,000 Northwest Riverside Buena Vet. Santa Ana River Redwood 0.30 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Counts Club 0.59 4 4 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMfnvest Riverside Canyon Crem Country Club Ma Vista 0.94 2 4 2 0% 2 3 0 0 a $1.433.00o $446,000 $0 so $0 $143,M $358.000 $188Aa0 $2,568.000 $1.854.000 NM1mwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro 0.68 4 4 0 a% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther Keg Centel D.S 4 4 0 0% 2 2 0 0 a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $a Northwest Riverside Central Chicago 1-215/SR40 2.15 4 4 0 09= 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwesf Riverside Central SR-91 Mognorw 0.76 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $9541000 $1,=.00a $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $239.000 $217,000 $2,725,000 $2.925.000 NMM1west Riverside Central At ... nd. SR-91 205 4 4 0 0% 1 2 a 0 0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $a $0 Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia 3.53 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 a 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Norlbwest Riverside Chicago Akaando Spruce 3.42 4 4 o 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia O.75 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18mawo $1.820A00 $4.550.000 $1,820,000 $26.390.000 $26.390,000 Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa 1.09 4 4 a 0% 1 2 3 0 2 $0 $0 $10,890,000 $0 $8A80,000 $1,937.00 $4.843,000 $1,937,000 $28,087.000 $28.0B7.000 Northwest Riverside low. Center 3d 2.25 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 2 $2.823.000 $3.609.000 $0 $0 $12.720.O00 $1,554.00a $3.886.000 $1,915.000 $26.507.000 $26.509.000 NMM1wed Riverside Iowa SO University 0.51 4 4 0 a% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwem Wood La 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 s0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Siena AlfrgUm SRAI 3.56 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside to Siena SR41 Indana 0.19 4 4 0 0% 1 2 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $a Northwest Riverside La Siena Indiana Victoria 0.98 4 4 0 OR 1 2 0 0 0 $0 s0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Riversitle Lemon (NO One way) Mission Inn University 0.06 3 3 a 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMM1west Riverside Lincoln Ad.. YVbLJpgt.m 1.55 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van BUTen Adams 1.54 4 4 0 a% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMM1west Riverside Lincoln W.mingiam VioiMa 1.43 2 4 2 0% i 2 0 0 a $1.n9.00g $2299.000 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $449.000 $409.000 $5,132.000 $5.132000 Northwest Rierside Lincoln Vatona Arington 0.28 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Madison SRAI Victoria 0.86 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8A80,000 $849.000 $2,120,000 $848,000 $12,296,000 $12.296.000 Northwest Riverside Magma BNSF RR In Siena 3.09 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 s0 $S.48D.a00 $848.000 $2.1m.wo $848.000 $12296.000 $12.296,000 NMfnved Riverside Magnolia La Sieve Homson 2.90 6 6 0 0% 1 2 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 f0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMM1west Riverside Magnolia Hanson 141h 5.98 4 4 0 0% 1 2 a a 2 $0 $0 $0 s0 $B,4BO.00O $848,000 $2.120.000 $848,000 $12.06.000 $12296.000 Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County 2.19 4 4 a a% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River 203 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Martin Luther ling 14M 1-215/SR30 2.11 4 6 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $2.651.000 $3.390.000 $0 $a s0 $265.000 $663.000 $604.000 $7.573.000 $6,890,000 NMhwest Riverside Mission inn Redwood Lemon 0.99 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 a $0 $0 W $0 $o $0 $0 TO $0 $0 NMhwest Riverside Overlook S.rdtroak Alessandro 0.32 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMM1west Riverside Overlook Washington Bcdewir Ma Monkcito 0.56 4 4 0 0% 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside OvMook 8adewin/Vw Montecifo Crystal Viaw 0.81 2 4 2 0% 2 2 0 0 0 $1.231.000 $1.298.000 $0 s0 $0 $123.000 $308.000 $253.000 $3.213.000 $3,213,000 Northwest Riverside OVerook Crystal View Via Vista 0.55 0 4 4 0% 2 2 0 500 0 $1.694,000 $1,969,000 $0 $5.760.000 $0 $943.000 $1,859.000 $920,000 $12,723,000 $12,723,000 Northwest Riverside Overook Va Vita Sandtack 060 2 4 2 0% 2 2 a 0 0 $959.00a $1.012.000 $0 $0 $0 $96.000 1240.000 $199Aa0 $2504.000 $2.504.000 NMhwest Riversitle Redwaad SO One wpyl Mbsionlnn University 0.08 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside TrauMein Alessan&. Van Buren 2.19 4 4 a 0% 2 2 a a 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magn.fa 0.43 6 6 0 a% 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $22,280,000 $0 $0 $2.228.000 $5.570.000 $2.228.000 $32.306,000 $32.306,000 Northwest Riversitle Tyler Magrolo Hole 0.29 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Riverside Tyler Hole Woos 1.06 6 6 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Welts Adngfan 1.35 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 a $1,698,000 $2.191.000 $0 $0 $0 $1I0A00 $425,000 $38I.000 $4,851,000 $4,851.000 Northwest Riverside University Redwood SRAI 0.86 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $o $0 $n $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Riverside University SR-91 1-215/SR-60 2.01 4 4 0 0% 1 2 a 0 0 $a $a $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 northwest Riverside Victoria Madeon Washington a.52 2 2 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Washngton Victor. Hermosa 2.06 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $2,581.000 $3,300.000 $0 $0 $0 $258.000 $645.000 $5s%000 $9.392a00 $1,372,000 NMhwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren 0.90 2 4 2 501% 1 3 a a 0 $44a.000 $166,000 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 $110.000 $61,000 $821,000 $821.Oo0 Northwest Riversitle Wood Van Buren Bergomont 0.11 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameno 0.39 2 4 2 60% 1 3 0 0 0 $1951000 $94.000 $0 $0 s0 $20,000 $49,000 $27,000 $365Aa0 $365.O110 Northeast Unincoporated Archibad San Bernardino County RMer 3.0 2 4 2 67% 1 3 0 1.200 0 $1.981000 $655,000 $0 $6,912.O00 $a $865.000 $2.162.000 $930.000 $13.258.000 $9336,000 NMM1west Unincorpoated Armstrong Son Bemardno County Valley 7.53 2 4 2 4M 2 3 0 0 0 $969,Oo0 $239.000 $0 $0 $0 $27,000 $192,000 $101A00 $1,376.000 $1.169.DOa NMM1west Unincorporated Befgnove CantuGMeono Ranch Van Buren 0.0 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $362000 $136.000 $0 $0 $0 $36.O0a $91.000 $50.000 $675,000 $609,000 Northwest Urimcarporated Conno alkano Ranch Hamner Winevile 0.94 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 a $0 W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Unincorporated ContuGalkano Ranch Wnevile Belgrave L82 0 4 4 20% 1 3 0 0 0 $3.657.000 $1.380.000 $0 $0 $0 $366.000 $914.000 $504,000 $6.821.000 $6821,000 Northwest Unincorpaoted Dos Lagos (Wettk) Temescal Canyon 1-15 0.21 4 4 a 0% 1 3 0 0 a $0 $0 $0 $a s0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwesf Unincorporated 0Contra 1-13 Ontario 0.56 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $699.000 $264.000 $0 $0 $0 $70.000 $I75.000 $96.000 $1.304,000 $1,304.000 NMhwest Unincopoated Eltwanda San Bemard. County SR40 Lot) 6 6 0 a% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Uninco posted Etwordo SRC timonNe 3.00 4 4 0 a% 1 3 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TO $0 $0 NMhwest Unincorporated Hamner Belgrave AmberM1ll 0.42 4 6 2 a% 1 3 0 a 0 $522000 $199,000 $0 $0 $0 $52.000 $131,000 $92,000 $9I4,000 $974.000 NMhwest Unecaporated Hamner AmberhT ❑monite 0.49 2 6 4 0% 1 3 a a 0 $1,234,000 $466.000 $0 $0 $0 Slam $309.000 $170'Wo $2302000 $1.850.000 Northwest Unincorpoated Hamner Limardte Schl.4man 1.00 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1.251,000 $472,001) $a $0 $0 $125.000 $313,000 $192000 $2,333,000 $2,333,000 Northwest Unincaryarated Hamner SCM1lecmorr Santa Anna River 1.29 2 6 4 0% 1 3 0 1.200 0 $323O000 $1119.000 $0 $13,624,000 $0 $1,905AOa $4,264A00 $1.827.000 $26.069.000 $25.696.000 Northwest Unincorporated Hamner Motors Belgrave 1.11 2 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1.393.000 $526,000 $0 $0 $0 $139.000 $348.000 $192.000 $2598.000 $2,559.000 NMM1west Unincorporated Haney John Wasnmgtan Scottsdale 0.12 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Had, John Scottsdale Catalco 1.19 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1A92000 $563.000 $0 $0 $0 $149.000 $393.000 $206A00 $2.983,000 $2,983,OOa Northwest Unmaorpvrated La Ske. Vpfara El Sobrante 2.22 4 4 a 0% 2 3 0 0 a $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Lo Siena 8Sothmate Cajako 2.36 2 2 0 ON 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Unincoparated limonite ArchIDdd Hamner 1.99 4 6 2 0% 1 3 a 0 a $2,505,00o) $9"J" $0 $0 $0 $251,M $626,000 $345A00 $4,693,000 $4.393.000 Northwest Unincarparated Limortfe Hamner 1-15 0.62 4 6 2 a% 1 3 3 0 0 $995.000 4292000 $I0.890100a $0 $0 $1.167.000 $2.916.000 $1,196.000 $19.236.000 $16.754.000 Northwest Unncopoated Limonite 1-15 Wnevile 0.40 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 Nodimmat Unincorporated Umonite Vf ®e Efwanda a.99 3 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NorOrwest Unincorporated Limonite ENVanda Von Buren In 2 6 4 0% 1 3 a a 0 $6,82= $2599.000 $0 $0 $0 $6B3.0aa $1,909,000 $941,000 $12,737,000 $9,299.000 Northwest UnFcwpaated Limonite Van Buren Clay 0." 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $995.000 $396.ro0 $0 $0 $0 $100.000 $249.000 $139.00o $1,857,000 $1,857,000 NMhwest Unincorporated Limonite Clay Riverview 2.45 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Unincorporated Market Rubio.. Santa MO River 1.94 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 1.000 0 $2192000 $827,000 $0 $5.960.000 $0 $I95.000 $11988.000 $878.000 $12440,000 $11,753.00 NMhwest Unincorporated Melon Mmisen SR40 1.61 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $a Northwest Unincaponoted Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River 9.39 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 LOGO 0 $0 s0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Unincorporated Mockirgbird Canyon Von Brien Calaico 4.34 2 4 2 0% 2 3 0 0 a $6.601,000 $2055.004) $0 $0 $0 $660,000 $1.650Aa0 $866,000 $11.831.000 $11,576.000 NMhwest Unincorporated Riverview limonite Mission 0.95 4 4 a 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NMlswesl Unmcorpwated Rubidorn San Bemadino County Mission 2.65 4 4 0 0% 2 3 3 0 a $0 $0 $10.890.000 $0 $0 $1,09,000 $2.923000 $110891080 $15,991,000 $15,991.000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Ontario Tuscany 0.65 2 4 2 20% 2 3 0 0 0 $989.000 $245AOo $0 $0 $0 $99A00 $199.000 $103,000 $1,411,000 $1,41 LOOa NMM1west Unincorporated TemescalConyon Tuscany Oa Lagos 0.91 4 4 0 o% 2 3 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 NMhwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy 1.10 2 4 2 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $1.6wcoo $523AOa $0 $0 $0 $I68.O00 $420.000 $220.000 $3.011.000 $3.01 LOW Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Does. Canyon 1.89 2 4 2 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $2.13m,aaa sB94.000 $0 $0 $0 $289.000 $918,000 $396.000 $5.145.000 $5.145.000 Northwest Unincaryorated Temenod Canyon Dawson Carryon 1-15 0.0 4 4 0 0% 2 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $10.89Oo00 $0 $0 $1.089.000 $2.923.000 $1.089.000 $16,Nl,000 $15,791,000 NMhwest UnhcMpaated Tem..l Canyon H5 Pork Canyon 3.41 2 4 2 0% 3 3 0 0 0 $6.098.O00 $1.615.000 $0 $0 $0 $610.00 $1.525.000 $991.000 $10.619.000 $10.619,000 Northeast Unincorporated Temescol Canyon Pak Carryon Indan Tuck Liao 255 2 4 2 05E 2 3 0 0 0 $3,892.000 $1,20I,000 $0 $0 $0 $388.000 $969,000 $5m,m $6,949,000 $6,949,000 Northwest Unincorporated Valley Armstrong Mission 0.48 4 4 a 0% 1 3 0 0 a $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 "M 2009 Network Costs Adopted October 5, 2009 Prickly Gould..1n Bold) Narihwest Unincorporated Woad kramena Cojako 2.99 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $3J52,000 $1,416,01M $0 $0 $0 $3I5.000 $938.oW $51ZWO $6,998,000 $6.998,000 Pass Banning Blh Wilson 1-10 0.54 2 2 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ross Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Wilson lath) O.73 2 4 2 O% 1 2 0 0 0 $922.OW $1.1I9,0W $0 $0 $0 $92.000 $231.W0 $210,000 $2,634,000 $1,317.000 Ross Banning Highkmd Springs Cherry Valley Oak Volley 116M) 1.53 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,927.000 $2.464.000 $0 $0 $0 $193W0 $482.000 $439,000 $5,505.000 $2]53.000 Pea Banning 1-108ypes South 1-10 Apache ira3 3.29 0 2 2 0% 1 2 3 3W 0 $4,12I,W0 $5,227,000 $10,8901000 $1,728,000 $0 $1.695.WD $4.166,OW $2=20W $30,085,000 $30.085.000 Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 2.01 2 2 0 0% 1 2 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Romsey 1-10 Wistm (81h) 1.90 2 2 0 0% 1 2 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey "an (ath) Highland Springs 3.55 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 j0 $0 $0 $0 $0 W $0 $0 Pass Banning SR-243 410 Wesley 0.62 2 2 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 j0 $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset 1.W 0 4 4 0% 1 2 0 200 0 $2,512,OW A.212,000 $0 $2,304.000 $0 $482.000 $1,204,000 $803,0DD $10.517.OW $10.517.000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs HlghbM Home 1.33 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 40 40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pan Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln 0.28 2 4 2 0% 1 2 3 0 1 $355,OW $454,000 $10.890.WO $0 $18200.W0 $2.945,WC $9,361.Wa $2.990.000 $43.195.000 W.195.000 Pass Banning Wilson(8M) Highland Noma Wilson 181h) 2.51 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Banning WBson (ath) Hghl.nd Springs Highland Home 1.01 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1.265.0(0 $1.618.0W $0 $0 $0 $129,01M $316.000 $2N.M $3,614,000 $3.614,001) Pass Beaumont 1st Vlele Pennsylvania 1.28 2 4 2 a% 1 2 0 0 0 $1.6120W $2.062,OW $0 $0 $0 $161.000 $403,000 $369A00 $4.605.000 $0 Ross Beaumont 1st Penmylvania Highland Springs 1.10 2 2 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 10 $0 W $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 6M 1-10 Highkrcl Sprngs 2.24 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (SfC) 0.99 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 a E1,239.000 $467,00D $0 $0 $0 $124,000 $310,000 $171.W0 $2,311,000 $0 Pass Beaumont Highland Songs Wis. IBM) Sun Lakes O.76 4 6 2 0% 1 2 3 0 0 $957.OW $1.223.000 $10.89D.000 $0 $0 $1.185.000 42,962, 00 $1,307,000 $16.524.000 $19.15a= Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania 1.13 4 4 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ;0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (I 4th) Pen.'k,.n s Oak View 1.4p 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $a $0 Pea Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Oak View 1-10 0.65 3 6 3 0% 1 2 3 100 0 $1,22400 $1,565,000 $10,690.0W $864,000 $0 $1.298,000 $3245A00 $1,454.0W $20,540,000 $D Ross Beaumont Oak Valley (SIC) Beaumont City Limits Cherry Valley 1J St / Central Over 3.46 2 2 0 0% 2 3 0 0 a $0 $0 j0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ea $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley lS3C) Cherry Valley lJ St Central Over PI 1.69 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $2,092,000 $990,OW j0 $0 $0 $209=0 $523.0W $288,000 $3,902.000 10 Pau Beaumont Penmylyani. 6th 1st 0.53 2 2 0 0% 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $10,890,000 $0 $0 $1.089.000 $2,723.000 $l.OB9,D00 $15,791,000 $0 Pass Beaumont VI.I. 4th 10 0.31 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $391.000 $499A00 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $98.00 $89,000 $1.116,000 $0 Pass Beaumont Viol. 6M 4th 0.50 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 1 $03.000 $909,WO $0 $0 $1B20a,000 $I.B83.W0 $4,908.OW $1,964= $28,19I,000 $0 Pass Calimesa Bryant County tine Singletom 0.38 2 2 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $n $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass CalBneso C.Bmesa County Line 1-10 0.80 4 4 0 0% 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $ffi280,000 $0 $0 $2.228A00 $5,570AW $2,228,000 $32.306,OW $32306.W0 Pan Car c- Cherry Valley Roberts Palmer 0.50 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $624.000 $235.W0 $0 $0 $0 $62,000 $156.000 $86.000 $1,163W0 $0 Pass C.fimesa County Line 1-10 Bryant 1.74 2 4 1 0% 1 2 3 0 0 $1.105.Wo $1.413.000 $10.890.WO $0 $0 j1.2W.W0 $2.999.OW $1.341,000 $18.948.000 $18.94B.000 Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Cherry Valley CMmoions 1.61 2 4 2 0% 1 3 a 0 0 $2018,M $961AW $0 $0 $0 $202,000 $505.000 $278,000 $3,I64.W0 $3264,OW Pass Calimesa Singleton Bryant Condit 1.86 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $5,668.M $1.965AW $0 $0 $0 $567.000 E1,41TWO $943,0) $10.160.0m $10,160.000 Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts 0.85 2 4 2 0% 1 2 2 0 0 $1,068W0 $1,3660W $22,280,000 $0 $0 $2.335.000 $5,832000 $2,471,000 $35,352.OW $35.352,OW Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Noble 0.95 0 4 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $2.392.000 $903.000 40 j0 $0 $239.OW $598,000 $3W.OW $4,462WC $4,4620W Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Desert Lawn 3A0 2 4 2 0% 1 3 2 WO 0 $4,265,000 $1,610,000 $2226D.OW $1.128.W0 $0 $2.827.000 $9.068,W0 $2988,000 $42,766,000 $42.I66.000 Pass Unincorporated two Oak Canyon Oak Voley ISrC) San Bemardino County 2.83 2 2 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Oak Valley l$fCI San Bemardino County Beaumont City Limas 5.65 2 2 0 0% 2 3 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9.10D.000 $910,000 $2,275,00 $910A00 $13,195,000 $13.195.0m San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo 0.98 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ea $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigonf Stetson JAB 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $D $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sar... n RR Croats, Acacia 0.42 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing 0,58 4 4 0 07. 1 2 0 0 0 $0 40 $0 $0 j0 $0 $0 $0 j0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplonede I.W 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,255,W0 $1,605,0W $0 $0 $0 $126." $314,OW $286000 $3,586,000 $1,789.0W San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Warren Cawston IA2 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 jo $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74(florid.) Columbia Raman. 2.58 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/5R-79 (Honda) Cawdon Columbia 4.03 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Dornengoni Chambers 1.31 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson 0.51 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 a $0 $a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Hand. Esplanade 1.94 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 j0 San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson fkrio. 1.25 2 4 2 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $1,565.W0 $4.192,001) $0 $0 $0 $157.000 $391.000 $576,000 $6,881,000 $4,936,OW San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cwnton State 2.52 4 4 a 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Son Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Caweton 1.00 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1,255,M $473,000 $0 $0 $0 $126.000 $314.000 $173,000 $2.341,000 $2,341,000 San Jacinto Hemet Women Esplanade Domenigonf 4.99 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 S00 0 $6.267.W0 $2365AW $0 $1.728.000 $0 $800,000 $1.999.OW 41.036.000 $14.195,000 $13,396W0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Ramona Mountain 0.20 0 4 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $W2,000 $6420W $0 $o $0 $50.000 $126,000 $114,00D $1,434,000 $1, A4.000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplonode Mountain Stale 2.55 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Women 3.53 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $4,437.000 $1.674.GW $0 $0 $0 $444,W0 $I.1w,OW $611,000 $B.295,WO $8.275.000 San Jacinto Son Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade 3.55 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $4A55.000 j1,681.aW $0 $0 $0 $446.000 $1.114.000 $614.000 $8.310A00 $4,162.000 San Jacinto Son Jacinto SR-99 lNarth Ramona) State San Jacinto 1.02 2 2 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-29 (San Jacinto) JM SR -A 2.25 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $a $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-99 (San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd )M 0.25 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $310.01M $396.Wo $0 $0 $0 $31.000 $18,00D $11,000 $886.000 $686.WD Son Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade 1.99 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Street Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch 0.76 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 SW 0 $955AW $368000 $0 $MBO,WO $0 $384,13M $959,000 $4280W $5,958.WC $5.348.000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Street Ouandt Ranch Ramona 0.70 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona 6planade 3.47 2 4 2 0% 1 3 D 0 0 $4.359.000 31.645.OW $0 10 $0 $436,0W $1.090.W0 bdW,DOD $8.1W.W0 E8.13D.000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Sptngs SaMeaon Stale 2.54 2 4 2 W. 1 3 0 1W 0 $3,196,00i $11206,01M $0 $576,000 $0 $3I2.OW Sm.= $498,M $6J9600 $4,733,000 San Jacinto Unincarponted SR-79(Winchester) SR-74IfbMa) Domenigonf 3.23 2 2 0 0% 1 3 a 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $o Bon 2009 Network Costs Adopted October 5, 2009 Detailed Cost Estimate (RCTChloMyCoalition InSold) Southwest Lake EBeore Grand Lincoln Ton I 4 4 0 05 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake&more Grand Toff SR-741Riyeside) 0.86 2 4 2 40% 1 3 0 0 0 $646.000 $244.000 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $162.000 $89A00 $1206,000 $1,206.000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake 1F15 Lincoln 330 2 4 2 25% 2 3 3 0 0 13,543,000 $1,103,000 $10,8901000 $0 $0 $1.443,000 $3,608.000 $1,554,000 $2Z141.000 $20.582000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon 2.39 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-741ColrouRiveidel PIS Lakeshom 11u 2 6 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $5278.000 $6,749.000 $0 $0 $0 $528,000 $1.320,000 $1,203,000 $15.028.000 $11,647.000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-94 [Grand) Riverside SR-74 (Odegal 0.64 2 6 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $1,599.00D $2,04 ,000 $0 $0 $0 $160.00D $400,000 $364,W0 $4.567,000 $3,937.000 Southwest Lake Min. SR-741RNemde) Lakeshore Grand 1.74 2 6 4 10% 1 2 0 0 0 $3,925.000 $5.019.00 $0 $0 $0 $393,000 $981.000 $894,000 $11.212,000 $10,949,000 Southwest Mumeta California (lake Jefferson FIS 0.32 4 6 2 0% 1 2 2 0 0 $398,000 $509A00 $2312801000 $0 $0 $1268A00 $5,690,000 $2,319.000 $33.444.000 $33.444.000 Southwest Munieto California Gars LI5 Clinton Keith 126 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 40 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Mumefa Jefferson Muni Hat Springs Chevy 126 6 6 0 f 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Mumeta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg 1.02 0 4 4 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $2.561000 $962,000 $0 $0 $0 $256.000 $641,000 $353,000 $4JI9,000 $4,929,000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Muriel. Hot Slam, 2.32 2 6 4 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $5.953.000 $9.611000 $0 $0 $0 $595,000 $1.468.000 $1.359.OW $12,005,000 $16,105,000 Southwest Munieta Las Alamos J.ff a.n 1-15 0.38 2 4 2 05 1 2 0 350 0 $472,000 $60300 $0 $10161000 $0 $249.000 $622,000 $309,000 $4,271,000 $4,271.000 Southwest Mvmet. Los Alamos F15 1,215 1.39 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $I,751.000 $1239.000 $0 $0 $0 $II5.M $438,000 $399,000 $5001000 $4,I92,000 Southwest MUmeta Muerieta Hot Springs 1-415 Mangano. 1.48 6 6 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Muniela Musnata Hot Springs Jefferson 1,215 1.11 6 6 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest MUmeta Mumieto Hot Spings Margarita SR-99(Ma.1hosteO 1.01 4 6 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $1.266.000 $418.000 $0 $0 $0 $127,000 $317.00D $174.000 $2,36100D $1.448.000 Southwest Mumeta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith 1.92 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 SO $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieto Whilewood Clinton Keith Las Alamos 101 4 4 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California 129 4 4 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Margarita Mumieto Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula) 2.39 4 4 a 0% 1 3 0 a 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Cie Town Front Rancho California 1-15/SR-99 1.45 4 4 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 W $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechongo SR-79(Temecula) Via Glo.do 1.32 6 6 0 0% I 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Yw Gilberto Pechanga Road 1.44 4 4 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SD $0 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Marganta 189 4 6 2 60% 1 1 3 0 0 $949,000 $2.541.000 $10,890.000 $0 $0 $1,184.000 $2,960,000 $1,438,000 $199621000 $18.384.000 Southwest Temecula Rancho CalBomia Margarita Butterfield Stage 1.96 4 6 2 0% 1 1 0 0 0 $2,461.000 $6,593.000 $0 $0 $0 $246.000 $616.000 $905=0 $10,818,000 $10,818,La0 Southwest Temecula SR-791Temecula) 1-15 Pechanga 0.64 6 8 2 O% 1 3 0 0 0 $BOSAW $304A00 $0 $0 $0 $81.000 $201,Oo0 $111,000 $1.502,000 $123,000 Southwest Temecula SR-29(Temecula) Pechanga Road Butterfield Stage 108 6 6 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Moamar Baxter 415 Pabmar 0.39 2 4 2 0% 1 3 3 0 0 $463.000 $175A00 $10.890.000 $0 $0 $1,135,000 $28M= $1,I53,000 $16.6m000 $16,654,000 Southwest W, do., Bundy Canyon Micron HS 0.94 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $I.175,000 $1.503,000 $0 $0 $0 $118.00D $294.000 $268,000 $3,358,030 $3.358,000 Southwest Wldomar Central Border Palomar O.74 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $925.000 $1,181000 $0 $0 $0 $93,000 $231.000 $211A00 $2.642,000 $2,642,000 Southwest Wldomar Mission Burbly Canyon Palomar 0.84 4 4 0 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Jefferson 0.24 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $924.000 $349.000 $D $0 $0 $92.000 $231.000 $127AD $1.223,000 $1,723.000 Southwest Wikomar Palomar stolen Clinton Keith 2.79 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 a $3,503.000 $3.322.000 $0 $0 $0 $350,M $876,000 $483,000 $6.534000 $6,534.000 Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-N(Winchester) 3.39 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $4260.000 $1.ecag00 $0 $0 $o $426,W0 $1.065.WO $587.000 $7.94600 $7,946,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Murneta Hat Springs Rancho CaTriamia 1.78 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 650 0 $5.427.000 $1.690.000 $0 $2.488.000 $0 $1,292,000 $3,229A00 $1,461.000 $20.587,000 $20.587.000 Southwest Unincorporated Sufferliek Stage Rancho C.1torri SR-29(Temecula] 2.30 2 4 2 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $3,493,000 $1.0881000 $0 So $0 $349.000 $873,000 $458,000 $6,263,000 $6,261.000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage SR-29(Wiinchester) Auk) 128 2 4 2 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $3.420.000 $1.081.000 $0 $0 $0 $347,000 $868,00D $455,000 $6.m.000 $6,221,000 Southwest Unincorporated BuHer0ek Stage Auk Murrieto Hot Sam, 2.23 0 4 4 0% 2 3 0 450 0 $6,788,000 $1114,000 $0 $5.184.000 $o $1,197,000 $2.993,000 $1.4m000 $19685,000 $19,685.000 Southwest Unincorparated Central Grand Palomm 0.51 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $642.000 $821.000 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $161.000 $146AW $1,834,000 $1.04,000 Southwest Unincorporated Grand CO.,. Central 6.98 2 4 2 0% 1 2 0 0 0 $8,I70,000 $11,214,000 $O $0 $0 $877.000 $2.193,000 $1,998,000 $25,052,000 $25,052,000 Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Carryon Temesaal Canyon I-15 0.12 2 4 2 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $211000 $W.000 $0 $0 $o $21.000 $53.000 $29.000 $395.000 $395.O30 Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trall TemescalCanyon 1-15 0.18 2 6 4 0% 1 3 3 0 0 $4 goo $166.000 $10.890,WO $0 $o $1,133.Wo $2,833,000 $1,150,000 $16,612,000 $16.612,000 Southwest Unincorporated Mumetu Hot Springs SR-79(Winchester) PaunW 1.75 4 4 0 0% 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechongo Son Diego County 138 2 2 0 0% 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TnmA Administration MSHCP Taw $ 166,945A00 $ 61.826.000 $ 107,916d20 $ 10I,916,420 E 62,362,000 $ 59,959,000 $4,261,117A20 $ 3,765,089A00 B.S Item No. 13 ORDINANCE NO. 10-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.01(D) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 10.28.10(D) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows to modify the declared prima facie speed limits only on the following streets: Declared Prima Name of Street Facie Speed Limit and Portion Affected Miles Per Hour Commerce Center Drive Via Montezuma to Rider Way 25 Loma Linda Road Pechanga Parkway to Via Del Coronado 35 Pauba Road Butterfield Stage Road to Via Del Monte 40 Pechanga Parkway Temecula Parkway to Rainbow Canyon Road 40 Pechanga Parkway Rainbow Canyon Road to Wolf Valley Road 45 Pechanga Parkway Wolf Valley Road to South City Limit 40 Redwood Road Loma Linda Road to Wolf Creek Drive North 30 Via La Vida Margarita Road to Solana Way 30 Wolf Creek Drive North Pechanga Parkway to Wolf Valley Road 30 R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-03 Wolf Creek Drive South Wolf Valley Road to Pechanga Parkway 30 Section 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 3. The City Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of January, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-03 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 10-03 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of January, 2010, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 2010, by the following vote: F-Ayd:.�Ko1l1►[MIN diIAdi1:l4:63 NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2010/Ords 10-03 3 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Item No. 14 ACTION MINUTES of JANUARY 12, 2010 City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 7:51 PM. CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 10 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the action minutes of November 10, 2009; - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2) — Director Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Comerchero and Director Roberts who abstained 10.2 Approve the action minutes of December 8, 2009. - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Director Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Director Naggar who abstained CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:55 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, January 26, 2010, at 5:30 PM., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. California. Chuck Washington, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Item No. 15 ACTION MINUTES of JANUARY 12, 2010 City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING The Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting convened at 7:55 PM. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Person Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Washington, Roberts, Naggar RDA PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. RDA CONSENT CALENDAR 11 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the action minutes of November 10, 2009; - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2) — Agency Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Comerchero and Agency Member Roberts who abstained 11.2 Approve the action minutes of December 8, 2009. - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1) — Agency Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Naggar who abstained RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT RDA AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS RDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:57 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, January 26, 2010, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mike Naggar, Chair Person ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Item No. 16 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Agency Members FROM: Patrick Richardson, Planning and Redevelopment Director DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Departmental Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. REDEVELOPMENT Temecula Vallev Convention and Visitors Bureau Lease of Commercial Sgace in the Old Town Parking Garage — The Agency and the Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau have executed an Office Lease for commercial space in the Old Town Parking Garage. The Convention and Visitor's Bureau is currently in the process of working with the architect of the Civic Center project to design the tenant improvements. Town Square Market Place - As part of the Civic Center Master Plan, the City has created a development opportunity for approximately 52,000 square feet of commercial and office development surrounding the Town Square along the reconfigured Main Street. The Agency issued a Request for Interest to select a preferred development partner. On August 26, 2008, the City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Pelican Properties to develop the project. Pelican has participated in several meetings with Old Town stakeholders and adjacent property owners. They have worked closely with staff on site planning issues. On January 22, 2009 the Executive Director granted a three-month extension to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement which expires on May 26, 2009. Due to the state of the economy staff recommends the Agency extend the ENA an additional six months. On May 26, 2009 Agency Board approved a six (6) month extension to the ENA. Recently the Agency staff and Pelican Properties representatives met and agreed that it is necessary to discuss the possibility of an additional extension. Agency staff is anticipating meeting with the Agency sub -committee in early January to receive direction. Auto Mall Sign - The Agency and Auto Dealers Association have entered into a Loan Agreement for a loan from the Agency to the Auto Dealers Association in the amount of $875,000 for a state of the art high definition marquee sign. Part of the agreement stipulates that the City will have 10% of the time between sunrise and 11:00 p.m. daily to use the sign to promote City interests. The sign will be located on the currently vacant parcel south of Rancho Ford. The old sign will be removed. Per the Loan Agreement the Auto Mall sign shall be constructed on or before October 13, 2010. Facade Improvement Program - The Fagade Improvement Program provides funding assistance to Old Town business and property owners to provide exterior improvements to their buildings and property. Funding in the amount of $80,000 is available during FY 2009-2010 The following Fagade improvements are in process or recently completed: • Emporium Center — Fagade Renovation • Temecula Stage Stop — Outdoor canopy renovation • Pennypickle's Workshop — Change copy and refurbish sign • The applications currently under review have exhausted the Fagade Improvement Program budget for this Fiscal Year. Staff will advise all subsequent applicants that funds are not available for the remainder of this Fiscal Year. Currently the program is temporarily frozen due to the State of California Redevelopment Budget take. The Agency hope to reinstate the program in the Spring of 2010. HOUSING The Warehouse at Creekside - On August 12, 2008, the City Council approved an Owner Participation Agreement with Warehouse at Creekside for an Affordable Housing Mixed Use Project. The Agency is currently working with Bill Dalton on a new development on 3'' Street in Old Town. The proposed development includes 32 units of affordable housing and a 3500 square foot ground floor of commercial. The project includes one dedicated parking space for each residential unit. Grading permits have been issued for the project. The project is currently under construction and is slated to be completed by spring 2010. Diaz Road Exclusive Negotiation Agreement - The Agency issued a Request for Interest to select a preferred development partner for the 30-acre site located on Diaz Road. Seven firms have responded. On September 9, 2008, the City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with RC Hobbs Company to develop the project. Due to the State of California's Redevelopment SERAF take it is not possible for the Agency to pursue a project with the Hobbs Company on the Diaz site at this time. The Agency negotiated a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions ("PSA") for the sale of approximately 20 acres to Clearwater Development for the development of a water park. The Agency Board approved the PSA on September 22, 2009. Major terms of the PSA are a purchase price of $6.7 million with a $1 million "holdback" to mitigate existing soils conditions. Since the Agency and Clearwater Development entered into the PSA Clearwater requested an extension to the escrow of 6 months. At the October 27, 2009 Agency Board meeting the extension was approved. The new close of escrow is scheduled for April 30, 2010. First Time Homebuyers Program - On July 22, 2008, the City Council approved an amendment to increase the loan amount for down payment assistance from $24,000 to $65,000. This down payment assistance allows qualifying households to purchase homes in the $250,000-$300,000 price range. An article published in the Californian on July 5, 2009 has generated tremendous interest in the program. However, on July 24, 2009, the State Legislature passed a budget that proposes a take of $2.05 Billion in statewide redevelopment agency funds to help close the State's current budget deficit. This means that about $4,300,000 in City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency funds could be diverted to the state this Fiscal Year and an additional $900,000 diverted to the state in Fiscal Year 2010/2011. As a result, funding for this program is temporarily frozen and no new applications are being considered at this time. Summerhouse - The Agency negotiated an Owner Participation Agreement ("OPK) with Summerhouse Housing Partners L.P for the purchase and development of the Summerhouse community. The Agency Board approved the OPA on September 22, 2009. The OPA terms require the development of 70 affordable units at very -low income, 20 units at moderate income, and 20 units at senior affordable income. The terms of this agreement place affordability restrictions on the property for 55 years. Summerhouse Housing Partners L.P. has closed escrow and taken full title to the property and has begun the clean-up and restoration of the site. A development plan has been submitted to the City and completion of the partially completed units shall begin within 120 days with completion of those 20 units no more than 15 months thereafter. Residential Improvement Program - The program budget for FY 2009/2010 is $200,000.00. However, on July 24, 2009, the proposed State budget take of about $4,300,000 from the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency has required unreserved funds budgeted for this program to be temporarily frozen. The Redevelopment Agency is currently processing 5 applications totaling $34,295 that were in the queue prior to Monday, July 27. No new applications are being considered at this time. Eleven applications are on hold pending release of funds for this program. PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 17 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Extension of Time application for the Temecula Regional Hospital PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TERM OF CERTAIN LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS TO PERMIT THE BEGINNING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PRIOR TO JANUARY 22, 2011 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA09-0362) BACKGROUND: On January24, 2006, the Temecula City Council voted unanimouslyto certify a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and issue approvals for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Subsequent to the certification of the Project El R and Project approvals, two separate legal challenges were filed in Riverside County Superior Court by the California Nurses Association and Citizen's Against Noise and Traffic. In a Writ of Mandate issued by Judge Dallas Holmes on May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ruled that the City of Temecula did not properly analyze the Project impacts in the El R related to a Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) plume in proximity of the Project site, siren noise in the vicinity of the Project site, construction noise, and the El did not provide sufficient differentiation of the hospital's specific traffic mitigation from the cumulative Project's traffic mitigation. In its ruling, the Court determined that the Temecula City Council "must set aside [its] approval of the Project and suspend all activity on the Project until it has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with CEQA." As a result of this decision, the applicant submitted Planning Applications PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits) on July 3, 2007, and paid for a City managed EIR to complywith the Writ of Mandate issued bythe Court. Judge Holmes ruled that only those issues identified in the Writ of Mandate as being inadequate would need to further analysis and that a Supplemental EIR would be an acceptable method of complying with the Court's ruling. The supplemental EIR was completed in November 2007 and was circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period. On January 22, 2008, the City Council voted unanimouslyto certifythe Supplemental EIR and issue approval for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. As part of the CEQA approval for the project, the Statement of Overriding Considerations approved forthe Supplemental EIR found that the substantial benefits to the community provided by the hospital project would outweigh the adverse environmental impacts described in the EIR. However, the CEQA approval of the ancillary facilities is conditioned on the completion of the hospital, and the hospital Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan provide that ancillary facilities are dependent on the completion of the hospital and cannot be developed without the hospital. UHS first submitted plans for the hospital to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) in October of 2005 and UHS has reported that they have been diligently pursuing approvals from OSHPD since their first submittal. Having just received OSHPD approval for the hospital in December, 2009, however, UHS has not been able to commence construction of the hospital, which has also delayed construction of the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness rehabilitation center. UHS has therefore requested a one year extension of time to allow for additional time to finalize their Water Quality Management Plan and obtain grading permits. Staff recommends that the City Council extend from January 22, 2010 to January 22, 2011 the period for commencing substantial construction of the Hospital and the Ancillary Facilities as described in Condition of Approval No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition of Approval 5 of Resolution No. 08-13. The phrase "commencement of substantial construction contemplated bythis approval" as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08-13 means: (1) the submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital thereafter. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is consistent with the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital certified on January 22, 2008. A Notice of Determination will be filed in accordance with CEQA Section 15162 — Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Extension of Time Application Applicant Statement of Justification for Extension of Time RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TERM OF CERTAIN LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS TO PERMIT THE BEGINNING OF SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PRIOR TO JANUARY 22, 2011 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA09-0362) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 22, 2008, the City Council held a public hearing and approved certain land use entitlements for a 320-bed regional hospital ("Hospital") and ancillary medical facilities consisting of two medical buildings, a cancer center and an fitness rehabilitation center ("Ancillary Facilities") on approximately 35.31 acres north west of the intersection of Temecula Parkway (formerly Highway 79 South) and Margarita Road. The entitlements were issued to Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"). Specifically the City Council on January 22, 2008 adopted the following resolutions and introduced the following ordinance specifically describing the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities and approving their construction; 1. Resolution No. 08-10 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0202, PA07-202; PA07-0201)." 2. Resolution No. 08-11 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080- 007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198)." 3. Resolution No. 08-12 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HELIPAD FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0202)." 4. Resolution No. 08-13. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959- 080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0200)." 5. Resolution No. 08-14. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO ONE PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0201)." 6. Ordinance No. 08-01 (Adopted on February 12, 2008). "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206, TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0199), AND RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 06-01" (adopted on February 12, 2008." B. Condition No. 9 of the Conditional Use Permit approved by Resolution No. 08-12 for the establishment of the 320-bed hospital facility and Hospital helipad ("Hospital CUP") provides that: "This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval." C. Condition No. 5 of the Development Plan approved by Resolution No. 08- 13 for the establishment of a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center ("Hospital Development Plan") provides that: "This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval." D. The Hospital CUP and the Hospital Development Plan were approved on January 22, 2008 and, therefore, the Hospital CUP and Hospital Development Plan would expire on January 22, 2010 unless extended by the City Council pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code § 17.05.010.H. which section provides: "The approving authority may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to the expiration, grant a time extension of one year (up to three extensions may be granted). Upon granting the extension, the approving body shall ensure that the development plan complies with all development code provisions." E. On December 30, 2009 UHS filed an application with the City seeking an Extension of Time pursuant to § 17.05.010.H. for the Hospital CUP and Hospital Development Plan to allow it to construct the Hospital during 2010. UHS subsequently filed a document that included a "Justification for Extension of Time" and "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" as part of its application for extension. F. In order to construct the Hospital, UHS was required to obtain the approval of the plans for the Hospital from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ("OSHPD"); 1. On October 11, 2005, UHS filed its application with OSHPD for State approval of the Hospital. 2. On December 17, 2009 OHSPD approved the plans for 178 beds for the Hospital. G. Until the OSHPD approval was received UHS could not begin construction of the Hospital. H. The OSHPD approval at the end of the two-year period has delayed construction of the Ancillary Facilities as well as the Hospital itself; 1. The Hospital CUP and the Hospital Development Plan provide that Ancillary Facilities are dependent on the completion of the Hospital and cannot be developed without the Hospital. 2. Moreover, the Statement of Overriding Considerations approved in Resolution No. 08-10 as part of the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report acknowledges the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts consisting of short term and long term air quality impacts, noise impacts, and direct and cumulative traffic impacts associated with the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities. The Statement of Overriding Considerations approved by Resolution No. 08-10 found, however, that the substantial benefits to the community of the development of the health care facilities provided by the Hospital in a region grossly underserved by hospital facilities would outweigh the adverse environmental impacts described in the EIR. The CEQA approval of the Ancillary Facilities is conditioned on the completion of the Hospital. 3. The Ancillary Facilities, therefore, cannot be constructed without the concurrent or prior construction of the Hospital. I. With the approval of the Hospital by OSHPD, there are no further impediments to the beginning of substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010 and UHS is now fully able to diligently pursued construction of the Hospital to completion. J. The development plans approved by Resolution Nos. 08-12 and 08-13, described in Section 1(a) of this Resolution, continue to comply with all development code provisions. K. As described in Section 1(a)(1), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-01 on January 22, 2008 that certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Hospital and the Ancillary Facilities on January 22, 2008 ("EIR"). There are no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation measures previously approved by Resolution No. 08-01. The City Council finds pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the EIR in approving the extension of the Hospital CUP and the Hospital Development Plan. The Director of Planning and Redevelopment shall file a Notice of Exemption as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. Extension of Land Use Approvals. A. In consideration of the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby extends from January 22, 2010 to January 22, 2011 the period for beginning substantial construction of the Hospital and the Ancillary Facilities as described in Condition of Approval No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition of Approval 5 of Resolution No. 08-13. In construing the phrase "beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval" as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08-13 the Council will consider the following schedule of actions required to begin substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010: (1) the submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital thereafter. B. In approving the extension of the land use entitlements for the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities as provided in Section 2(a), the City Council does not approve the "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" described in UHS' application for an extension. In order to implement a phasing program, UHS will need to file for a major modification of the entitlements described in Section 1. of this Resolution and fulfill all requirements of such a major modification, including, without limitation, fulfillment of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Nothing in this Resolution is intended to nor shall be construed as any approval or endorsement of such a timeline. Section 3. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 26th day of January, 2010. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of January, 2010, by the following vote: F-Ayd:.�Ko1l1►NllNdiIAdil:l:4:63 NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 FAX (951) 694-6477 E-Mail: www.cityoftemecula.org ReCMPlE DEC 36 2009 EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION )OA09. _OaDa PROJECT INFORMATION (INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED) Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital O Development Plan ED Conditional Use Permit p Tentative Map Original Project 320-bed hospital complex with full in -patient and out -patient services, as well as emergency services; two Description/Use: medical office buildings; 10,000 square foot cancer center; 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, available to patients and on -site staff Specify any changes to the originally approved project: None Assessor's Parcel No(s): None Legal Description (Tract, lot no.): Attached as exhibit A Street Address (es): None General location: North side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION Total Building Square Footage: 566,160 square feet Zoning: Planned Development Overlay (PDO)-9 General Plan: See Attachment A Gross Acreage: 35.31 acres Is Parcel(s) in an MSHCP "Criteria Cell": YES NO X (Go to www.rcio.ora to find out) RECEIVED 2 DEC 3 0 2009 CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. APPLICANT/REPRESENT)iTIVE/OWNER INFORMATION APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE universal Health services of Rancho sorinp, Inc. CONTACT Seed William LAST FIRST MI. PHONE NO. (610) 768-3300 FAX NO. ADDRESS Universal Corporate Center, P.O. Box 61558, 367 South Gulph Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406 STREET CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL william.seed@uhsinc.com d 1 certify that all filing requirements have been satisfied for my application. I further understand that an Incomplete application ca ccepted for processing. Applicant's Signatures 6 D ; 12-21-2009 PROPERTY OWNER Univers Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. LAST FIRST W. PHONE NO.610-382-3344 FAX NO.610-992-4560 ADDRESS 367 S. Gulph Rd. King of Prussia, PA 19406 STREET CITY STATE ZIP E-MAIL Owner Certification I certify under the penalty of the laws of the State of California that I am the property owner of the property that is the subject matter of this application and I am authorizing to and hereby do consent to the filing of this application and acknowledge that the final approval by the City of Temecula, if any, may result in restrictions, limitations and construction obligations being imposed on this real property. Owner/Authorized Agent Signature:— Date: Print Name: Written authorization from the legal property owner is required. An authorized agent for the owner must attach a notarized letter of authorization from the legal aroaerty owner. Section A. Justification for Extension of Time As the City of Temecula is aware, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS") has been diligently pursuing the necessary approvals from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ("OSHPD") to begin the development of the Temecula Medical Campus. The last of these approvals was received in early December, 2009, clearing the way for that development to begin. UHS expects to be able to begin the development following the timeline laid out below, subject to the approval processes and timelines imposed by the City of Temecula and other regulatory agencies involved in the process. Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline December 2009 Assess the document status for each of the Conditions of Approval to determine remaining tasks and follow up required. Verify same with City of Temecula. December 15 2009-February 12010 Solicit validation study response to determine needs and understand costs for medical services to be provided as Phase 1. January 2010 Solicit and hire appropriate City of Temecula experienced local consultants to assist in the completion of the documents necessary to satisfy Conditions of Approval. February 2010 Determine specific scope of services to be developed. March 2010 Select building development team. February -June 2010 In preparation of final grading permit: Complete Water District filings (3) Complete Flood Control District filings Submit signed rough grading plans Finalize and submit Water Quality Management Plan, Drainage Report, Precise Grading Plan Complete and submit Street Improvement Plans Resubmit Water and Wastewater Plans approved in 2008 SDCA_1571027.1 9]01V_1:MI►�i101 Allk I REPORTS Item No. 18 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department for the months of November and December, 2009. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 104 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations including 7 applications for public hearings during the months of November and December. Special Projects & Long Range Planning Activities The Long Range Planning Division commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities currently in progress are described in the paragraphs below: Temecula Regional Hospital — This project was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008. The CEQA challenge period for the Supplemental EIR expired on February28, 2008. No legal challenges were filed regarding the SEIR. The CEQA challenge period for the second reading of the Zone Change expired on March 14, 2008. The Public Works Department and Planning Department metwith the applicant and the applicant's architect on May 21, 2009 regarding the status of grading plans, street improvement plans, the project's Water Quality Management Plan, and fees. Staff met with representatives from UHS on November 20 and December 18, 2009, to discuss revisions to the phasing plan to begin construction in January 2011 for the project that would result in the first phase of construction including one 80,000 square foot medical office building, followed by phased construction of the hospital towers of approximately 50 beds per phase and build out of the project in the year 2030. The approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the project would expire on January 22, 2010, however on December 30, 2009 the applicant submitted an application for a one year extension of time. Staff is awaiting re - submittal of plans to address comments regarding permits for rough grading, precise grading, street improvement plans, and a Water Quality Management Plan. (FISK) • General Plan Housing Element Update —Staff submitted the final draft Housing Element to HCD on April 9, 2009, and HCD completed its review on June 9, 2009. Comments received on the final draft contained a handful of suggested corrections and sample language to add to the Housing Element. Staff completed an initial study and circulated a Negative Declaration for a 30-day public review and comment period from July 31, 2009 through August 31, 2009. A Planning Commission hearing was held on September2, 2009, and the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Housing Element Update and adopt the Negative Declaration. City Council adopted the Housing Element on November 10, 2009 and the Housing Element has been submitted a final time to HCD for a 90-day Certification review. (SCHUMA) • Nicolas Valley Rural Preservation Area — The March 2009 community survey responses clearly indicated that there is not support for a CFD for roadway improvements (57% of owners and 83% of registered voters within the CFD boundary would not support). The survey did not clearly reveal an overwhelming decision on preferred zoning for each of the districts. A Community Meeting was held on May 21, 2009 where 55 residents attended to inform the residents of the survey responses and discontinue this work effort. The residents requested the opportunity to conduct their own follow up survey to determine if a majority could agree on a zoning preference for the area, but staff has yet to receive any results. Staff finalized and posted on the website the revisions to the Dirt Road Policy to allow more leniency for additions and replacement of existing residences. A hydrology study was completed in September, providing a mapped boundary of properties impacted by the 100- year floodplain. Staff is currently working to complete the roadway design and traffic study. No additional technical studies/consultant work will be completed. (PETERS/KITZEROW) • SCE Triton Substation - Staff provided a comment letter on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Triton Substation to be located at the southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa in the Nicolas Valley Rural Preservation Area. It is the City's opinion that the Draft MND fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA. The City's interests in this matter include ensuring that the proposed Triton Substation does not adversely impact the City of Temecula and its residents, businesses or visitors. Based on substantial inadequacies in the Draft MND, the City has requested that the California Public Utilities Commission suspend any further consideration of the project and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report that fully discloses the potential impacts of the Project and fully complies with all other CEQA requirements. Specifically, the City contends that Site Alternative B (located further to the west along Nicolas Road) is a superior site and would significantly reduce aesthetic impacts to the Nicolas Valley. The City wants a full analysis of alternative sites as is required in a Draft ElR. The City objects to any further CPUC action on the Project and is formally requesting to become a Party in any further proceedings. (PETERS/KITZEROW) • 1-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) —Staff is working with WRCOG, SCAG, RCTC, RTA, SANDAG, and the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore on Phase III of the 1-15 IRP which includes the development of a Smart Growth Concept Map, which will coordinate land use and transportation decisions to accomplish the goals of SB 375 and AB 32. The Smart Growth Concept Map is intended to be used as the Sustainable Communities Strategy requirement of SIB 375. A draft of the plan has been completed and was presented to the 1-15Interregional Partnership Policy Committee on December 16, 2009. The balance of Phase 111 work of the 1-15 IRP will pursue coordinated economic development and housing strategies as identified in Phase 11 (WEST/INNES) • City Sustainability Plan —Staff continueswith the preparation of the draft Sustainability Plan by focusing on the Green House Gas Emissions Inventory (explained below) and the development of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. Delays with the completion of this Plan are attributed to shifting priorities, opportunities and mandates as further described: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant — The City was awarded the initial grant award amount of $250,000 on September 24, 2009. The total dollar amount available to the City is $940,700. In order to access the remaining grant funds, staff must prepare an energy efficiency and conservation strategy and submit it to the Department of Energy by January 20, 2010. Staff is currently developing the strategy and has identified the following three program activities that will be incorporated into the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy: 1) Adaptive Traffic Signal Synchronization System Program, 2) Municipal Facilities Energy Management and Retrofit Program, and 3) Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program. (WEST) The Green House Gas (ghg) Emissions Inventory- The committee selected 2007 as the base year for ghg emissions inventory analysis. There are two separate inventories being prepared; 1) a municipal operations inventory and 2) a communitywide inventory. Staff has worked through the various City Departments to obtain data for the municipal operations inventory, and worked with the utility companies and water agencies for the communitywide inventory. Both the municipal operations and communitywide emissions inventory have been completed. Staff is currently reviewing the data and will present the results to the Sustainability TAC on January 26, 2010 to establish an emissions reductions target. The next steps will be to develop a climate action plan and incorporate the findings into the Sustainability Plan. (WEST) Energy Efficiency Loan Program — Staff is currently developing a program which would allow property owners to applyfor a low -interest loan for energy improvements that would be paid through property taxes. This program is being modeled after the Palm Desert program as authorized under AB 811. The draft Administrative Guidelines and loan documentation has been prepared and staff is now identifying eligible improvements for the program. Additionally, staff is working with the Redevelopment Agency to make energy efficiency improvements an available component of the Residential Improvement Program and working with Western Riverside Council of Governments on a regional approach for an AB 811 type program. (WEST) Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance —The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt an updated state model ordinance developed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), or an equivalent, no later than January 1, 2010. Staff has compared the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to the State's model ordinance and the County's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and has made revisions as necessary to complywith AB 1881. The first reading of the Ordinance was on December8, 2009, and the second reading is scheduled for January 12, 2010. (WEST) Santa Margarita Area Annexation — On November 19, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval to proceed with an application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission to expand the City's Sphere of Influence and annex the Santa Margarita Area consisting of approximately 4,997 acres located immediately southwest of the City. On December 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolutions in favor of the Sphere of Expansion and Annexation. The City Council also certified the Environmental Impact Report for this project on December 9, 2008. Staff filed a Sphere of Influence and Annexation application with LAFCO on December 17, 2008. The application was denied by LAFCO on June 4, 2009. Resolutions for denial were adopted by LAFCO on June 25, 2009. The City filed an Application for Reconsideration to remove the Liberty Quarry project site (and a few neighboring parcels) from the Annexation proposal and the Reconsideration was denied by LAFCO on September 24, 2009 and determined the revised boundaries was not justifiable as "Reconsideration Application" but would need to be a brand new Annexation Application. On December 3, 2009, LAFCO voted to waive the one-year waiting period and reduce the filing fee by 50% if the City of Temecula wanted to bring back a new Annexation Application for modified boundaries. City Council will vote on whether or not to proceed with a new Annexation Application on January 12, 2009. (LOWREY/RICHARDSON) Liberty Quarry Draft Environmental Impact Report — The County of Riverside has released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Granite Construction's Liberty Quarry Surface Mining Permit, Change of Zone, and Noise Ordinance Exception. The project is a 75-year land use permit for a rock quarry and associated aggregate processing facilities, hot mix asphalt plant, ready mix concrete plant, concrete and asphalt recycling facility, administration and employee buildings, a maintenance facility with diesel, gas and propane tanks, water tanks, natural gas fuel engines for electric power generation, water and gas lines, settling ponds, truck scales, and truck and equipment parking areas within a 414 acre -site located approximately % mile from the City's southwest boundary within the County of Riverside. The public review and comment period was extended 60 days beyond the original commenting deadline. The City reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and provided comments to the County of Riverside on November 23, 2009. (LOWREY/WEST/RICHARDSON) Development Code Update — Staff is preparing an update of the Development Code with various changes that include: codification of the City's current policywhich allows directional signs for colleges and universities; amendment to large family daycares consistent with State Law; removal of granny flats from the code consistent with State Law; updating the square footage allowance for guest houses to be the same as what is allowed for second dwelling units; wine tasting to require a CUP (unless the applicant is also a wine maker), minimizing requirements which trigger processing a sign program, and other minor clarifications within the Code. A public hearing is anticipated for Planning Commission on February3, 2009 and Planning Commission recommendations will be broughtforward to the City Council on February 23, 2009. (LOWREY) • Old Town Specific Plan Update —Staff is working in conjunction with consulting firms Inland Planning+Design and Fehr and Peers (parking and circulation) to prepare an update to the Old Town Specific Plan that addresses the ten goals and recommendations for Old Town presented to City Council on March 25, 2008. On August 11, 2008, the Old Town Local Review Board formed a steering committee for the Specific Plan Update currently consisting of Board Members Blair and Moore, with the purpose of this committee being to provide the Old Town Local Review Board with additional opportunities to review and comment on concepts and preliminary plans as the Specific Plan update progresses and for the committee to report back to the other Board members on the progress of the update. Commissioners Guerriero and Kight are also members of the Steering Committee, which most recently met on November 5, 2009 to review progress on the proposed sign section for the Specific Plan Amendment. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currently being prepared for the project, and staff held a scoping meeting with the community on July 21, 2009 to solicit input on environmental concerns that should be addressed in the EIR. The first draft of the traffic impact analysis for the Specific Plan Amendment revealed the need for additional circulation routes and revised mitigation measures. The second draft of the traffic impact analysis has been completed and staff believes it is acceptable in its current form. Staff will present the recommended traffic mitigation measures to Council and the community before proceeding with the EIR 45-day review period. Staff has completed the first draft of the Specific Plan Amendment and is making revisions and additions based on comments from the DRC review team. (FISK/INNES/LOWREY) • SCAG 2012 RTP - The update to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is underway. Staff attended a meeting with SCAG, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the Center for Demographic Research (CDR) in August 2009 to review the schedule and process for the update. The RTP will include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); a new component to the RTP as a result of the passage of SIB 375. Staff will be working with the abovementioned agencies throughout the update process. The first order of business is to review Base Year Conditions and General Plan Based Growth Forecast/Distribution and Land use foryears 2020 and 2035 and to provide comments to SCAG by January 15, 2010. (WEST) Planning Agenda Report 11 /1 /2009 through 12/31 /2009 1. Recently Approved APN # • PA09-0334 Norris Ranch Xmas Tree Lot 959070012 PETERS/KITZEROW A Major Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for Norris Ranch to operate a Christmas Tree lot at Rancho Community Church December 1-24, 2009 from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday -Sunday on the corner of Rancho Community Way and Temecula Parkway Submitted Date Approved Date 11/16/2009 Nov 24 2009 APN # • PA09-0348 Empowerment Center Major TUP 909324013 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow the Empowerment Center to conduct worship services, training seminars and administrative functions while awaiting approval of a Minor CUP (PA09-0338) Submitted Date Approved Date 12/10/2009 Dec 29 2009 APN # • PA09-0318 Lowe's XMAS tree lot MTUP 910330011 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Major Temporary Use Permit for a Christmas Tree Lot in the parking lot of Lowe's Home Improvement store located at the southeast corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads, addressed as 40390 Winchester Road. The event will be open from November 18, 2009 thru December 20, 2009, Monday thru Friday 8am to 9pm, and Saturday and Sunday 8am to 8pm Submitted Date Approved Date 10/27/2009 Nov 16 2009 APN # • PA09-0227 Penske Truck Rental CUP 921030039 DANA SCHUMA A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow Penske to operate a truck rental facility in an existing industrial building located at 27565 Diaz Road (related case PR09-0008) Submitted Date Approved Date 7/10/2009 Nov 5 2009 APN # • PA09-0197 TPC 11 Medical Center DP 910470032 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Development Plan to construct a 16,229 square foot, two-story medical office building on Pad D within Power Center II, located east of Promenade Mall Loop Road, west of Margarita Road, between North General Kearny and Verdes Lane (Related Case PR09-0004) Submitted Date Approved Date 6/11/2009 Nov 18 2009 APN # • PA09-0324 Enchanted Xmas Trees Major TUP 910420005 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit for Enchanted Christmas Trees to operate a Christmas tree lot located in the west lower level parking lot near Macy's at 40900 Winchester Road from November 21st through December 24th Submitted Date Approved Date 11/3/2009 Nov 17 2009 1 of 5 Planning Agenda Report 11 /1 /2009 through 12/31 /2009 APN # • PA09-0308 Temecula Pedi Cab 922294011 CHRISTINE DAMKO A Major Temporary Use Permit for a pedi-cab service in Old Town. TUP application is for a six-month trial period to start on November 27, 2009 and end on May 27, 2010. Submitted Date Approved Date 10/9/2009 Nov 27 2010 APN # • PA09-0306 Old Town Harvest Festival 922023022 CHRISTINE DAMKO A Major Temporary Use Permit for an Old Town Harvest Celebration in conjunction with the Temecula Farmer's Market on November 7, 14 and 21. Event will require a mid -block street closure on Sixth St. (from Front Street to the Del Rio Cake parking lot). The event will highlight farmers, provide games/activities for the community and host a food drive. Submitted Date Approved Date 10/8/2009 Nov 5 2009 2 of Planning Agenda Report 11 /1 /2009 through 12/31 /2009 Scheduled for Hearing APN # • PA09-0338 Empowerment Center MCUP 909324013 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit for a religious facility without daycare or an educational component located at 27262 Via Industria Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Directors Hearing 11/19/2009 Jan 14 2010 APN # • PA09-0317 Francescas Italian Kitchen PCN 961010027 DANA SCHUMA A Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity application for a Type-47 license for the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits at Francesca's Italian Kitchen located at 31165 Temecula Parkway (Related Case PA09-0316) Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision 10/27/2009 Jan 20 2010 APN # • PA09-0316 Francescas Italian Kitchen CUP 961410030 DANA SCHUMA A Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits (Type-47 ABC license) at Francesca's Italian Kitchen located at 31165 Temecula Parkway (Related Case PA09-0317) Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision 10/27/2009 Jan 20 2010 APN # • PA08-0117 T-Mobile Cell Tower Redhawk 962040012 ERIC JONES A Conditional Use Permit and Antenna Facility Application for a cell tower facility developed as three 35' flag poles located 45100 Redhawk Parkway. An equipment enclosure will be incorporated with the project. (Previous Application: PR07-0020) Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Planning Commision 5/22/2008 Mar 17 2010 APN # • PA09-0268 Feduniw Family Day Care Minor 957550002 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a home -based family day care facility to operate with up to 12 children at 30713 East Gate Parkway Submitted Date DRC Meeting Date Directors Hearing 9/2/2009 Feb 25 2010 APN # • PA08-0125 Temecula Village PDO-5 Amend1 944290012 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Zoning Amendment to modify PDO-5 (Temecula Village) to permit Grocery Stores up to 15,000 square feet with a Conditional Use Permit (currently allowed up to 10,000 SF w/CUP). Other changes include reducing landscape buffer/setback along Rancho California Road from 25 to 20 feet and miscellaneous clean-up/references to previous approvals. Temecula Village is located along the south side of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga Road. (Associated projects PA08-0122 and PA08-0123 - Fresh and Easy DP/CUP) Pending City Council hearing (date to be determined). Submitted Date I DRC Meeting Date I Planning Commision 3 of Planning Agenda Report 11 /1 /2009 through 12/31 /2009 6/4/2008 6/26/2008 Oct 15 2008 4 of Planning Agenda Report 11 /1 /2009 through 12/31 /2009 New Submittals Pending DRC Meeting APN # • PA09-0345 U-Store-It Monopine 961010009 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Conditional Use Permit for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 35-foot monopine wireless antenna facility surrounded by a wrought iron fence and consisting of 3 sectors of 6 antennas each (18 panel antennas), 2 GPS antennas, a parabolic antenna, and supporting ground radio equipment cabinets stored inside an existing U- Store-It storage facility building at 44618 Pechanga Parkway Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 12/3/2009 1 /7/2010 TBD APN # • PA09-0347 Stratford @ Redhawk Rich Am TR230653 CHERYL KITZEROW/MATT PETERS A Residential Tract Product Review for the remaining 57 (of 106) lots at Stratford in Redhawk (Planning Area 9) to be constructed by Richmond American. Units range in size from 1,700 square feet to 2,625 square feet and include four plan types with three elevation types. Original Product Review by Centex - PA06-0137/ Richmond American Pre-app for new product - PR09-0016 Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 12/8/2009 TBD APN # • PA09-0359 Circus Vargas Major TUP 910420005 ERIC JONES A Major Temporary Use Permit for Circus Vargas at 40820 Winchester Road at the Temecula Promenade Mall. The event will take place in a big top tent from March 25-29, 2010. The length of the shows will be approximately 90 minutes. Hours of operation vary from 1:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The tent can accomodate 1,500 people and the capacity of the event is estimated between 500 and 1,000 people. Food will be served. Alcohol will not be served. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 12/21 /2009 TBD APN # • PA10-0002 Mimi's Minor CUP 910290005 ERIC JONES A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow Mimi's Cafe, located at 40705 Winchester Road, to upgrade their existing liquor license from a Type 41 to a Type 47. Submitted Date Anticipated DRC Meeting Date No Hearing Planned 1 /11 /2010 TBD 5 of Item No. 19 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report - December 2009 PREPARED BY: Sue Steffen, Executive Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file On December 2, 2009 Council Member Ron Roberts traveled to Los Angeles, California to attend the Southern California Association of Governments Executive/Administration Committee, Transportation Committee, and Regional Council meetings. On December 10, 2009 Council Member Ron Roberts traveled to Los Angeles, California to attend the Southern California Regional Rail Authority Board of Directors Special Meeting. Attachment: Meeting Agendas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA' ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 236-1800 f(213)236-1825 x ..scugsn.gov Officers President Jon Edwy,El Centro First Vice President Larry McCallon, Highland Second Vice President Pam O'Connor, Same Monica Immediate Past President Richard Dixon, Lake Forest Executive/Administration Committee Chair Jon Edney, EI Centro MEETING OF THE Please Note Meeting Room and Time Chancre Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:30 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. SCAG Offices 818 W. 74h Street, 121h Floor Policy Committee A Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Deby Salcido at (21.3) 236-1993 or via email salcido @scaD.ca.aov Agendas & Minutes for the Executive/ Policy Committee Chairs Administration Committee are also available at: Community,Economicand Human Developme Carl Morehousehouse,,Ventura www.scaci.ra.aov/committees/eac.htm Energy&Environment Keith Hanks,Amsa SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will Transportation accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in Mike Ten, South Pasadena order to participate in this meeting. If you require such assistance, please contact SCAG at (213) 236-1928 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to enable SCAG to make reasonable arrangements. To request documents related to this document in an alternative format, please contact (213) 236-1928. The Regional Council is comprised of83 elected officials representing 189 cities, she counties, five County Transportation Commissions, Imperial Valley Association of Governments and aTribal Government representative within Southern California. 6,16.09 Executive/Administration Committee Membership December 2009 Hon. Jon Edney, El Centro, Chair Hon. Larry McCallon, Highland, Vice Chair Members Hon. Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Hon. Richard Dixon, Lake Forest Hon. Mark Calac Hon. Janice Hahn, Los Angeles Hon. Keith Hanks, Azusa Hon. Bill Jahn, Big Bear Lake Hon. Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura Hon. Larry Nelson, Artesia Hon. Greg Pettis, Cathedral City Hon. Sharon Quirk -Silva, Fullerton Hon. Ron Roberts, Temecula Hon. Mike Ten, South Pasadena Mr. Randall Lewis District 1 District 7 Representine District 41, 2°a Vice President District 13, Immediate Past President Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, Appointed District 62, Appointed District 33, Chair, EEC District 11, Vice Chair, CEHD District 47, Chair, CEHD District 23, Vice Chair, EEC District 2, Vice Chair, TC District 21, Appointed District 5, Appointed District 36, Chair, TC Lewis Operating Corp., Ex Officio EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 31 2009 TIME PG# The Executive/Administration Committee may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Hon. Jon Edney, Chair) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Executive/Administration Committee, must fill out and present a speaker's card to the Assistant Prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes. The chair may limit the total time for all comments to twenty minutes. 3.0 REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS 4.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Approval Items 4.1.1 Minutes of November 5, 2009 Meeting 4.1.2 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) 4.1.3 Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors 2010 Membership Dues ($5,000) 4.2 Receive & File 4.2.1 Contracts/Purchase Orders between $5,000 - $200,000 Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment 1 6 20 22 FAC — December 2009 DOC#154611 SUMMERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA i ASSOCIATION ofGOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 39 2009 TIME PG# 5.0 ACTION ITEMS 5.1 Amendments Greater than $75,000 Attachment 5 min 39 (aggregate value) (Leyton Morgan, SCAG Staff Recommended Action: Approve and forward to the Regional Council an amendment to contract #09-102-C1/SIGMANE7', Inc., in the amount of $263,540 and an amendment to Purchase Order #2764/CompuCom, Inc., in the amount of $198,235. 5.2 Resolution No. 09-514-01, Accepting 5304 Grant Attachment 5 min 45 Funds and Amending the FY 2009/10 Overall Work Program (OWP) (Matt Gleason, SCAG Staff Recommended Action: Recommend that the Regional Council approve and adopt a resolution accepting $47,877 from Caltrans and authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOLD with Omnitrans. 5.3 Resolution No. 09-514-02, Accepting 5304 Grant Attachment 5 min 48 Funds and Amending the FY 2009/10 Overall Work Program (OWP) (Matt Gleason, SCAG Staff Recommended Action: Recommend that the Regional Council approve and adopt a resolution accepting $50,000 from Caltrans and authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). 6.0 CFO MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Attachment 5 min 51 (Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer) 7.0 FUTURE AGENDA :ITEMS Any Committee member or staff desiring to place items on a future agenda may make such request. EAC — December 2009 DOC#154611 SUMMERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 2009 TIME PG# 8.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS 9.0 ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the ExecutivelAdministration Committee is scheduled for Thursday, January 7, 2010 at the SCAG Los Angeles office. EAC — December 2009 D00#154611 SUMMERS M"SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA w ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 1° SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t(213)236-1800 f(213)236-ta25 wwwscagcagov Officers President Jon Edney, E1 Centro FiirstVice President Larry McCallon, Highland Second Vice President Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Immediate Past President Richard Dion, Lake Forest Executive/Administration Committee Chair Jon Edney, El Centro Policy Committee Chairs Community, Economic and Human Development Cad Morehouseventum Energy&Erwimnment Keith Hanks, Azusa Transportation Mike Ten, South Pasadena MEETING OF THE PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN TIME Thursday, December 3, 2009 9:00 a.m. - 9:40 a.m. SCAG Offices 818 We 7th Street, 12th Floor Board Room A & B Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions on any of the agenda items, please contact Deby Salcido at (213) 236-1993 or via email salcidoCcD_scao.ca.aov Agendas & Minutes for the Transportation Committee are also available at: www.scag-ca.gov/committees/tc.htm SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to participate in this meeting. If you require such assistance, please contact SCAG at (213) 236-1928 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to enable SCAG to make reasonable arrangements. To request documents related to this document in an alternative format, please contact (213) 236-1928. The Regional Council is comprised of 83 elected officials representing 189 cities, six coumies, five County Transportation Commissions, Imperial Valley Association of Governments and a Tribal Government representative within Southern California. 6.16.09 Transportation Committee Membership December 2009 * Hon. Mike Ten, South Pasadena, Chair District 36 * Hon. Gregory Pettis, Cathedral City, Vice Chair District 2 Members Renresentine Hon. Steve Adams, Riverside WRCOG * Hon. Mike Antonovich Los Angeles County * Hon. John Beauman, Brea District 22 * Hon. Glen Becerra, Simi Valley District 46 Hon. Russell Betts, Desert Hot Springs CVAG Hon. Joel Bishop, Dana. Point OCCOG * Hon. Art Brown, Buena Park OCTA * Hon. Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore District 63 * Hon. Barbara Calhoun, Compton District 26 * Hon. Stan Carroll, La Habra Heights District 31 * Hon. Kelly Chastain, Colton SANBAG * Hon. Gene Daniels, Paramount District 24 Hon. Steve Diels, Redondo Beach SBCCOG * Hon. Richard Dixon, Lake Forest District 13 * Han. Glenn Duncan, Chino District 10 * Hon. Judy Dunlap, Inglewood District 28 * Hon. Bonnie Flickinger, Moreno Valley District 3 * Hon. Pat Gilbreath, Redlands District 6 * Hon. Paul Glaab, Laguna Niguel District 12 Hon. Thomas Glancy, Thousand Oaks VCOG Hon. Cathy Green, Huntington Beach OCCOG Hon. Mario Guerra, Downey GCCOG * Hon. Frank Gurule, Cudahy District 27 Hon. Bert Hack, Laguna Woods OCCOG * Hon. Janice Hahn, Los Angeles District 62 * Hon. Robert Hernandez, Anaheim District 19 * Hon. Carol Herrera, Diamond Bar District 37 * Hon. Jose Huizar, Los Angeles District 61 Hon. Trish Kelley, Mission Viejo OCCOG Hon. Tom King, Walnut SGVCOG * Hon. Val Lerch, Long Beach District 29 * Hon. Robin Lowe, Hemet RCTC Hon. Brian McDonald Chemehuevi Indian Tribe * Hon. Marsha McLean, Santa Clarita District 67 * Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra District 34 Hon. Malcolm Miller, Norco WRCOG * Hon. Keith Millhouse, Moorpark VCTC * Hon. Leroy Mills, Cypress District 18 * Denotes Regional Council member Transportation Committee Membership (cont'd) - December 2009 Members Reoresentine * Hon. Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica District 41 Hon. Micheal O'Leary, Culver City WSCCOG * Hon. Gary Ovitt San Bernardino County * Hon. Bernard C. Parks, Los Angeles District 55 Hon. John V. Pomierski, Upland SANBAG *'Hon. Frank Quintero, Glendale District 42 * Hon. Sharon Quirk -Silva, Fullerton District 21 * Hon. Ron Roberts, Temecula District 5 Hon. Mark Rutherford, Westlake Village LVMCOG Hon. Damon Sandoval Morongo Band of Mission Indians * Hon. Greig Smith, Los Angeles District 59 Hon. David Spence, La Canada-Flintridge SGVCOG Hon. Tim Spohn, City of Industry SGVCOG * Hon. Jeff Stone Riverside County * Denotes Regional Council member TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 2009 The Transportation Committee may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Hon. Mike Ten, Chair) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Transportation Committee, must fill out and present a speaker's card to the Assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes. The Chairman may limit the total time for all comments to twenty minutes. 3.0 REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS 4.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 AnnrovalItem 4.1.1 Minutes of October 1.2009 Joint Policy Committee Meeting 4.1.2 Minutes of November 5.2009 Joint Policy Committee Meeting 4.1.3 Minutes of November 5.2009 Meeting i Attachment Attachment Attachment TIME PG# SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Tc—DECEMBER2009 ooC#154770 Stmin-11/23/2009 1 7 13 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 2009 5.0 ACTION ITEMS 5.1 Letter to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) supporting NextGen Deployment in Southern California (Michael Armstrong, SCAG Stafj) At the request of the Aviation Technology Advisory Committee, it is recommended that the SCAG President send a letter to FAA expressing interest in the FAA giving early consideration on NextGen deployment of satellite -based navigation technologies in Southern California. Recommended Action: Approve letter and authorize staffto submit letter to FAA. 5.2 Amendment #2 to the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan MTPI and Consistency Amendment #08-24 to the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) (Ryan Suo, SCAGStg)) The Draft Amendment #2 to the 2008 RTP and Draft Amendment #08-24 to the RTIP have met all federal and state requirements for adoption. Recommended Action: Recommend Regional Council adopt Resolution No. 09-514-3 approving Amendment #2 to the 2008 RTP and Consistency Amendment #08-24 to the 2008 RTIP. Attachment Attachment TIME PG# 5 min 10 min SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS TC—DECEMBER2009 Doc#154770 Strain-11/23/2009 20 23 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 39 2009 6.0 INFORMATION ITEM 6.1 Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strateev (Annie Nam, SCAG Stafn Staff will provide an update on the current effort to develop a comprehensive regional goods movement plan to refine the goods movement portion of the Regional Transportation Plan "). 7.0 CHAIR'S REPORT 8.0 STAFF REPORT (Naresh Amatya, SCAGStajD 9.0 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 10.0 TIME PG# Attachment 20 min 105 Any Committee member or staff desiring to place items on a future agenda may make such a request. 11.0 ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Thursday, January 7, 2010 at the SCAG Los Angeles office Hi SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS rC-DECEMBER2009 DOO 154770 Stein-11/2N2009 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA No. 514 MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh street 12th Floor Thursday, December 3, 2009 Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 92:15 p.m. — 2.00 p.m. t(213)236.1800 f (213) 236-182S SCAG Offices 818 W. 71h Street, 12th Floor wwwscagraAe. Board Room A & B Officers Los Angeles, CA 90017 President Jon (213) 236-1800 Edney, El Centro ._ Fina Via President Larry McCallon, Highland - SemndVimPresident If members of the public wish to review the attachments or Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica have any questions on any of the agenda items, please Immediate Past President contact Deby Salcido at (213) 236-1993 or via email Richard Dixon, Lake forest salcldo@scaQ.ca.goy L3tecutive/Administration Committee Chair Jon Edney, El Centro Agendas & Minutes for the Regional Council are also Policy Committee Chairs available at: www.scaci.ca.gov/committees/rc.htm Community, Emnomic and Human Development - CadMorehouse,Vemura SCAG, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will Energy&Environment accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to Keith Hanks, Azusa participate in this meeting. - If you require such assistance, please contact SCAG at (213) 236-1928 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting to enable SCAG to Mike Ten, south Pasadena rran Transportation make reasonable arrangements. To request documents related to this document as9 in an alternative format, please contact (213) 236-1928. The Regional Council Is comprised of 83 elected officials representing 189 cities, six counties, five County Transportation Commissions, Imperial Valley Association of Governments and a Tribal Government representative within Southern California. 6.16.09 ------------- Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council Roster December 2009 Members Representin¢ 1. Hon. Jon Edney, El Centro, President District i 2. Hon. Larry McCallon, Highland, ? Vice President District 7 3. Hon. Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica, 2"a Vice President District 41 4. Hon. Richard Dixon, Lake Forest, Immediate Past President District 13 5. Vacant Imperial County 6. Hon. Mike Antonovich Los Angeles County 7. Hon. Mark Ridley -Thomas__., Los Angeles County 8. Hon. Chris Norby Orange County 9. Hon. Jeff Stone Riverside County 10. Hon. Gary Ovitt San Bernardino County 11. Hon. Linda Parks Ventura County 12. Hon. Art Brown, Buena Park OCTA 13. Hon. Robin Lowe, Hemet RCTC 14. Hon. Kelly Chastain, Colton SANBAG 15. Hon. Keith Millhouse, Moorpark VCTC 16. Hon. Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles At -Large 17. Hon. Greg Pettis, Cathedral City District 2 18. Hon. Bonnie Flickinger, Moreno Valley District 3 19. Hon. Ron Loveridge, Riverside District 4 20. Hon. Ron Roberts, Temecula District 5 21, Hon. Pat Gilbreath, Redlands District 6 22. Hon. Deborah Robertson, Rialto District 8 23. Hon. Paul Eaton, Montclair District 9 24. Hon. Glenn Duncan, Chino District 10 25. Hon. Bill Jahn, Big Bear Lake District it 26. Hon. Paul Glaab, Laguna Niguel District 12 27. Hon. Beth Krom, Irvine District 14 28. Hon. Leslie Daigle, Newport Beach District 15 29• Vacant District 16 30. Hon. John Nielsen, Tustin District 17 31. Hon. Leroy Mills, Cypress District 18 32. Hon. Bob Hernandez, Anaheim District 19 33. Hon. Andy Quach, Westminster District 20 34. Hon. Sharon Quirk -Silva, Fullerton District 21 35. Hon. John Beauman, Brea District 22 36. Hon. Larry Nelson, Artesia District 23 37. Hon. Gene Daniels, Paramount District 24 38. Hon. David Gafin, Downey District 25 39. Hon. Barbara Calhoun, Compton District 26 40. Hon. Frank Gurule, Cudahy District 27 41. Hon. Judy Dunlap, Inglewood District 28 Members Representine 42. Hon. Val Lerch, Long Beach District 29 43. Hon. Tonia Reyes-Uranga, Long Beach District 30 44. Hon. Stan Carroll, La Habra Heights District 31 45. Hon. Margaret Clark, Rosemead District32 46. Hon. Keith Hanks, Azusa District 33 47. Hon. Barbara Messina, Alhambra District 34 48. Hon. Margaret Finlay, Duarte District 35 49. Hon. Mike Ten, South Pasadena District 36 50. Hon. Carol Herrera, Diamond Bar District 37 51. Hon. Paula Lantz, Pomona District 38 52. Hon. Susan Rhilinger, Torrance District 39 53. Hon. Judy Mitchell, Rolling Hills Estates District 40 54. Hon. Frank Quintero, Glendale District 42 55. Hon. Steven Hofbauer, Palmdale District 43 56. Hon. Dennis Washburn, Calabasas District 44 57. Hon. Bryan MacDonald, Oxnard District 45 58. Hon. Glen Becerra, Simi Valley District 46 59. Hon. Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura District 47 60. Hon. Ed Reyes, Los Angeles District 48 62. Vacant District 49 63. Hon. Dennis Zine, Los Angeles District 50 64. Hon. Tom LaBonge, Los Angeles District 51 65. Hon. Paul Koretz, Los Angeles District 52 66. Hon. Tony Cardenas, Los Angeles District 53 67. Hon. Richard Alarcon, Los Angeles District 54 68. Hon. Bernard Parks, Los Angeles District 55 69. Hon. Jan Perry, Los Angeles District 56 70. Hon. Herb Wesson, Los Angeles District 57 71. Hon. Bill Rosendahl, Las Angeles District 58 72. Hon. Greig Smith, Los Angeles District 59 73. Hon. Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles District 60 74. Hon. Jose Huizar, Jr., Los Angeles District 61 75. Hon. Janice Hahn, Los Angeles District 62 76. Hon. Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore District 63 77 Hon. Gil Coerper, Huntington Beach District 64 78 Hon. Ginger Coleman, Apple Valley District 65 79. Hon. Melanie Fesmire, Indio District 66 80. Hon. Marsha McLean, Santa Clarita District 67 81. Hon. Mark Calac, Pechenga Band of Luiseno Indians Tribal Govt. Rep. REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 2009 PAGE# The Regional Council may consider and act upon any of the items listed on the agenda regardless of whether they are listed as information or action items. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Hon. Jon Edney, President) 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Members of the public desiring to speak on items on the agenda, or items not on the agenda, but within the purview of the Council, must fill out and present a speaker's card to the Assistant prior to speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes. The President may limit the total time for all comments to twenty minutes. 3.0 REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS 4.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 5.0 4.1 AnurovalItems 4.1.1 Minutes of October 1, 2009 Joint Regional Council and Policy Committees Meeting Attachment 1 4.1.2 Minutes of November 5, 2009 Joint Regional Council and Policy Committee Meeting Attachment 7 4.1.3 Minutes of November 5, 2009 Meeting Attachment 13 4.1.4 Memorandum of Understanding (MOM with Attachment 22 San Bemardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) 4.1.5 2010 Pronosed Meeting Schedule Attachment 36 4.2 Receive & File 4.2.1 Contracts/Purchase Orders between Attachment 38 $5,000 - $200,000 5.1 New Committee AMointments SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA I ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 6.0 REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 2009 PAGE# 6.1 Executive/Administration Committee (EAC) Report (Hon. Jon Edney, Chair) 6.1.1 Amendments Greater than $75,000 (aggxegate value) Attachment 54 (Leyton Morgan, SCAG Staffi Recommended Action: Approve amendment to Contract #09-102-C1/SIGMANET, Inc., in the amount of $263,540 and an amendment to Purchase Order #2764/CompuCom, Inc., in the amount of $198,235. 6.1.2 Resolution No. 09-514-01— Accepting 5304 Grant Attachment 60 Funds and Amending the FY 2009/10 Overall Work Program (OWP) (Matt Gleason, SCAG Staff Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 09-514-01 accepting $471877 from Caltrans and authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Omnitrans. 6.1.3 Resolution No. 09-514-02 — Accepting 5304 Grant Attachment 63 Funds and Amending the FY 2009/10 Overall Work Program (OWP) (Matt Gleason, SCAG Staffi Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 09-514-02 accepting $50,000 from Caltrans and authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC). SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 2009 PAGE# — Cont'd 6.2 Legislative/Communications and Membership Committee Report (Hon. Glen Becerra, Chair) 6.2.1 Public Participation Plan Amendment No. 2 Attachment 66 Amendment No. 2 (Angela Rush en, SCAGStaffi Recommended Action: Approve 6.2.2 Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors Attachment 113 Membership Dues ($5.000) (Mike Jones, SCAG Staff) Recommended Action: Approve 6.2.3 Federal and State Legislative Update Attachment 115 (Sharon Neely, Director of Legislation) 6.3 Community, Economic and Human Development Committee (CEHD) Report (Hon. Carl Morehouse, Chair) 6.4 Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) Report (Hon. Keith Hanks, Chair) 6.4.1 Conformity Analysis for 2008 Regional Attachment 134 Transportation Plan (RTP) Amendment 42 and 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Consistency Amendment #08-24 (Rongsheng Luo, SCAG Staffi Recommended Action: Approve the conformity analysis for the 2008 RTP Amendment #2 and 2008 RTIP Consistency Amendment #08-24. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 111 ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 2009 PAGE# Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) Reno — Cont'd 6.4.2 Program Environmental Impact Report WPEIRj Attachment 136 Addendum #2 for 2008 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment #2 (Wendy Lockwood, Sirius Environmental) Recommended Action: Approve PEIR Addendum #2 for 2008 RTP Amendment #2. 6.5 Transportation Committee (TC) Report (Hon. Mike Ten, Chair) 6.5.1 Amendment #2 to the 2008 Regional Transportation Attachment 139 Plan (RTP) and Consistency Amendment #08-24 to the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 09-514-3 approving Amendment #2 to the 2008 RTP and Consistency Amendment #08-24 to 2009 RTIP. 6.6 Audit Committee (Hon. Pam O'Connor, Chair) 6.6.1 Audit Committee Charter and Receipt of Comprehensive Attachment 221 Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the Single Audit (Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer) Recommended Action: Approve and adopt the Charter and Receive and File the CAFR and Single Audit Report. 6.7 _Bylaws Committee and Nominating Committee Report (Joann Africa, Acting Legal Counsel) 6.7.1 Proposed Regional Council Election procedures Attachment 242 A presentation of proposed election procedures as reviewed jointly by the Bylaws Committee and Nominating Committee will be presented. Recommended Action: Approve SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IV ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 39 2009 PAGE# 7.0 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director) 8.0 INFORMATION ITEM 8.1 CFO Monthly Financial Report Attachment 245 (Wayne Moore, CFO) 9.0 ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Regional Council is scheduled for Thursday, January 7, 2010, at the SCAG Los Angeles office. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA V ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS MIETROLINK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY SCRRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2009-10:OOA.M. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) BOARD CONFERENCE ROOM 818 WEST SEVENTH STREET, 12th FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a brief general description of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended, actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Authority may take any action that it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. The Chairman reserves the right to discuss the items listed on the agenda in any order. A person with a disability may contact the Board Secretary's office at (213) 452-0245 or via email veroo(&scrra.net at least 24-hours before the scheduled meeting to request receipt of an agenda in an alternative format or to request disability -related accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The agenda, staff reports and supporting documentation are available from the Board Secretary, located at 700 S. Flower, 26t"Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, and on the Metrolink website at www.metrolinktrains.com under the Board Agenda link. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item ` appearing on the agenda, may do so by completing a Speaker's Form and submitting it to the Board Secretary. Speakers will be recognized by the Chairman at the time the agenda item is to be considered. When addressing the Board, please state your name for the record. Please address the Board as a whole through the Chair. Please note comments to individual Board members or staff are not permitted when addressing the Board. A speaker's comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes. 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comment CLOSED SESSION 3. Closed Session a. THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES OR FACILITIES - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 — Consultation with Mr. Ed Pederson, Assistant Director, Operations, and/or representatives of Metrolink Sheriff Law Enforcement Bureau 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 2600 — Los Angeles, CA 90017-4101 SCRRA Board of Directors Special Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: December 9, 2009 Meeting Date: December 11, 2009 Page 2 b. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 Title: Chief Executive Officer Title: Advisor: Interagency Initiatives c. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE / NEGOTIATION — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 d. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Designated Representatives: General Counsel Helen Parker and Stephen Morris and Special Counsel David Weiss and the Law Offices of David Weiss, and Vice -Chairman Richard Katz and Director Art Brown Unrepresented Employee: Title: Chief Executive Officer Unrepresented Employee: Title: Advisor: Interagency Initiatives'` 5. ADJOURNMENT Item No. 20 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the attached Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Reports for the month of November and December, 2009 and the October 2009 Graffiti Report. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) PROJECTS UNDER CON RUCTION Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station The majority of work was completed by April of 2006. The remaining work will be Contractor: Tovey Shultz Construction, Inc. completed when the mainline utilities are installed, which the City is undertaking - PW03-01 I ContractAmount: $3,298,000 David McBride 97% (9110) 93% estimated start in March of 2010. A fire engine/truck venting system (requested/added on Approved Change Orders: $212,768.24 2/06) will be installed when the Contractor re -mobilizes, this cost is also included in the Account No. 210-165-741 approved change order total. City Property at Diaz Road and Dandy Parkway This project provided for the rough grading of the vacant City property at Diaz Road and (Northwest RDA Property) - Rough Grading Dandy Parkway. Al work was completed on March 28, 2007. Site restoration, including Contractor: Skanska hydroseeding, was completed in December of 2008. A notice of completion was approved PW06-03 I Final Contract Cost $5,948,799.71 David McBride Complete 100% by the City Council at the 1/13/09 meeting. Ongoing maintenance expenses will be incurred for NPDES measures until such time the property is developed. Minor BMP improvements were completed in late November of 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Project -Town Square and This project involves construction of the Town Square and street improvements on Mercedes & Main Street Mercedes & Main Streets. The project was awarded on March 18, 2008. All storm drain, Contractor: LH Engineering Contract Amt: sewer, and water improvements are complete and all the roadways are paved. Work near PW06-07 $3,4Appro8,495.00 vedChange Approved Change Orders) $ 265,133.48 DavidMcBride 99% (17109) 97% completion in the Town Square and the Fountain is fully functional. Various specialty 1C & 1 E ( 1 items and added work extended the completion date through December 2009. Account Nos.: 210-165-636 210-165-643 Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements This project widens Pechanga Pkwy to its ultimate width from Temecula Pkwy to from Temecula Parkway to City Limits @ Pechanga Pechanga Rd. The contractor has essentially completed the improvements including the PW99-11 Rd. Mayne De La "dual right turn lanes" work. The remaining work includes punch list items to include (Ph II) Contractor: All American Asphalt Contract Amount: $8,131,964.98 Tome/Amer Attar 100% 95% ridability and EMWD manhole adjustments. There is a claim to the City from EMWD regarding damages to their facilities that the contractor has allegedly caused. The project Account No. 210-165-668-58XX is substantially complete, as of August 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Projects This project includes the site grading and retaining walls for the Civic Center & the Parking - Parking Structure & Office/Retail Frontage Structure site as well as construction of a parking structure, including office frontage shell PW06-07 David space. Work is ongoing on exterior facade, landscaping and hardscapes. Contractor: PCL Construction McBride/ Bill 95 (1125110) 91 (1 D) Contract Amount: $15,797,010.00 McAteer Approved Change Orders: ($128,332.19) Account No. 210-165-644 Ronald Reagan Sports Park Channel Silt Removal & This project includes restoring the Best Management Practices (BMP) of the Stormwater Desiltation Pond Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Contractor: Sean Malek William the requirements of RWQCB by desilting the basin located near the Sports Park. 401 PW05-13 I Engineering Contract Amount: $315,510 Becerra/ Avlin 0% 0% Certification, Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Nationwide Permits have been Account No. 210-190-187-58XX Odviar acquired. Bids were opened on 08/26/08 and awarded on 12/08/09. Notice to Proceed effective 01/01A 0. Construction has begun. Contractor is working on the dewatering process to grade the site. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Old Town Civic Center This project will construct the Old Town Civic Center. City Council awarded the contract to Edge Development, Inc. on 09/09/08. Edge began work on 4/8/09. Work is ongoing on PW06-07 Contractor: Edge Development Bill McAteer/ steel stud framing, and rough in of mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Ph2 Contract Amount:$31,555,500 David McBride 52%(9128110) 50 Approved Change Orders: $88,093 Account No. 210-165-751-58XX Temecula Community Center Expansion Work began on January 13, 2009. The building is complete SAFE has moved in. Exterior Contractor: Erickson -Hall Construction Company punchlist is pending. The Escallier house and barn have been fumigated for termites. Dry Contract Amount: $1,184,000.00 William rot & termite infested wood has been removed and replaced. Staff has reviewed 100% PW06-05 III Account No. 210-190-197 Becerral David 100% 88% Plans and edits are required; the consultant agreement amendment to perform this McBride additional work was approved by City Council on 11/10/09. Staff is the reviewing the final plans and specifications after incorporating Building & Safety corrections. Project bidding is scheduled for the end of January. Redhawk Park Improvements This project will add amenities, which include ADA accessible parking, a restroom, a half - Contractor: IAC Engineering, Inc. Kendra court basketball court, and permanent dog park at Redhawk Community Park. As part of PW06-06 I Contract Amount: $787,094.92 Hannah- 10% (06/2010) 0% this project, a seatwall will be installed at Sunset Park. The Notice To Proceed was Account No. 210-190-144-58XX Mn Odviar ll / Avlin Otl issued 12/21/09. Construction activities will begin in January 2010. Completion is anticipated in June 2010. De Portola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project This project involves rehabilitating De Portola Rd pavement from Jedediah Smith to (from Jedediah Smith to Margarita) Margarita Rd. This is a federally funded project. Construction began the week of 3/16/09. Contractor: Hardy & Harper, Inc. Catch basin filter insert installation is the only remaining item of contract work. Change PW06-10 I Contract Amount: $1,161,000 Approved Change Orders (1-3): $34,877.01 Jon Salazar/ Amer After 124% 92% order work involving modification of an existing drainage structure is complete with the exception of hydroseeding a drainage channel, set to be done the week of 1A 1. Specified Account No. 210-165-656-58XX catch basin filters have been found to be incompatible, and will need to be re-specified/re- ordered. Final installation to take place before the end of January. Pavement Rehabilitation Rancho California Road This project will rehabilitate Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the City limits on (Ynez to East City Limit) - STPL Project Kendra the east. Construction began on June 3, 2009 and is anticipated to be completed by the PW06-14 I Contractor: All American Asphalt Hannah- 90% (01/2010) 55% end of January 2010. The contractor is working in the final section between Meadows Contract Amt: $3, 666, 004.25 Meistrell 1 Avlin Odviar Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. Account No. 210-165-657 Winchester Road / State Route 79 North - North This federally funded project will design and construct landscaping and irrigation Corridor Beautification enhancements to the existing raised medians along Winchester Road between Ynez PW06-15 I Contractor: Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. Chris Whiter 0% 0% Road and the easterly City limits. The project was awarded at the 12/08/09 City Council ContractAmount: $ 920,027.00 Amer After meeting to Belaire-West Landscape. The award amount was $920,027. Construction is Account No. 210-165-638 1 scheduled to start some time after March 1, 2010. Traffic Signal Interconnect Equipment Installation This project will install traffic signal interconnect equipment on Margarita Road, from Contractor: High -Light Electric, Inc. Chris Rancho California Road to Pio Pico Road. The Notice to Proceed letter was given to the PW04-05 I Contract Amount: $211,878.00 White/Maym 58% 0% contractor to start on November 23, 2009 for a 50-work day duration. Construction Account No. 210-165-712-58xx De La Torre continues. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME % PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) PROJECTS BEING DESIGNED BY CONSULTANTS Re -Stripe Route 79 South to 8lanes from Pechanga This project will provide four lanes in each direction on Temecula Parkway (formerly State Parkway to I-15 Kendra Route 79 South) from 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway. The City is working to meet Caltrans PW07-08 I Consultant: JMD Hannah- 60% (0212010) 50% requirements to do the striping. Amount: $29,210.00 Mn Oci l l Avlin tiviar Account No. 210-165-676-58XX Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements- This project includes construction of new wetlands for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel Environmental Mitigation Improvements -Stage 1. The wetlands will be created through construction of new Iandscapelrrigation systems. The site is located along the north bank of Temecula Creek PW99_ Consultants: Community Works Design Mayne De La (within flood-plain/way areas). The environmental regulatory agencies have approved this 11 EM 1 Contract Amount: $29,840 Torre 98% 98% new mitigation area. Mylars are ready for signature. Offers for purchase of the properties were made and City Council adopted a Resolution of Necessity to acquire the property on Account No. 210-165-668-58XX 11/25/08. The proposed improvements can't be implemented until the City obtains possession of the properties. The California Department of Fish & Game will have to sign off on this acquisition since they have jurisdiction over land the City will use for access. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension The project includes the extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz from Commerce Center to Diaz Rd Road with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. Coordination with RCFC & WCD, U.S. Army Chris White / Corps of Engineers and the state environmental regulatory agencies is required. The PW00-26 I Consultant: Project Design Consultants Contract Amount: $466,940 Mayne De La Tome 97% 97% 100% completion plans were submitted on November 16, 2009. They were returned to the consultant for foal red -line correction with foal submittal in January. Extension of time is Account No. 210-165-602-58XX going to be granted to consultant until March 31, 2010 to finalize plans. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. Design (Replacement) consultant Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) and the City are continuing to pursue Consultant: Simon Wong Engineering environmental permitting and coordination issues associated with pursuing the bridge Contract amount: $Contr 9 Amendment No. 1: Contract extension replacement as a project separate from the Army Corps of Engineer's Murrieta Creek tertermm Amendment No 2: Contract term extension Improvement project. Comments on the environmental technical reports were received P P j P Amendment No. 3: $322,305 from Caltrans on 4/28/09, and are being addressed by the consultant. The draft 100% Amendment No. 4: $24,063 (RCWD waterline) PS&E package was received from the design consultant on 2/17/09, and staff review is Jon Salazar/ 93% (Phases I complete. Comments on draft 100% plans resubmitted to design consultant 8/31/09. An PW03-05 Account No. 210-165-743-58XX Amer After g7% (2/10 ) & II g7% ) - (Phase 3) inter -agency meeting was held on 9/16/09 to determine mitigation requirements for this project. The outcome of this meeting was that the City will be required to mitigate for temporary vegetation loss incurred during construction; all other mitigation will be included in the USACOE overall Murrieta Creek flood control project. The environmental submittal/review process will now move forward accordingly. Development of a mitigation plan for the temporary impacts is not part of the design consultant's original scope, and a change order will be required. Proposal has been reviewed and approved for the mitigation plan; expected delivery the week of Jan. 18, 2010. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis This project includes the construction of an approx. 150' ped/bike bridge over Santa Creek Gertrudis Creek near Chaparral H.S. This is a federally funded project, which will involve a Consultant: Nolte Associates NEPA document. The approved Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) form was Co$132,807 received from Caltrans on 12/03/08; technical reports were submitted to Caltrans on PWOS-11 Account No. 210-165-738-SBXX Jon Salazar) Amer Attar yy% (2110 ) 91 % 5/13/09. Staff comments on draft 100% plans were returned to consultant on 5/27/09. Comments on environmental technical reports received from Caltrans in June, and have been addressed by City staff and consultants. Environmental technical reports (second submittal) are under review by Caltrans; comments on second submittal are anticipated from Caltrans by 1/15/10. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project involves the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new Consultant: TYLIN International bridge over Murrieta Creek at the westerly terminus of Western Bypass and an extension Contract Amt: $378,776.20 William of Pujol Street to the new structure. Once constructed, this will serve as the southerly PW06-04 I Amendment 2 Amt:$244,824.80 Becerral Avlin 70% 70% corn action of the Western Bypass Corridor. Design is un derway. Geotech nical Account No. 210-165-660-58XX Odviar investigations have been initiated and 90% Plans and Specs are being reviewed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. Applications to the various environmental agencies have been submitted. Temecula Park and Ride (79 South) This project will design and construct a park and ride facility on Temecula Parkway (formerly 79 South) at La Paz. The 70% design drawings were returned to AAE for revision and resubmittal. City and consultant discussing some of the comments. The PW06-09 Design Development AAE, Inc. Contract amount $109,085 Amer Attar 75% 75% are consultant is working to finalize the plans. 90 /o submittal is expected in February. Amendment#1 $20,500 Account No. 210-165-747-58XX Pechanga Pkwy-Dual Right Turn Lanes from This project included the design and construction of 2 right -turn lanes on eastbound Temecula Parkway (SR 79S) Temecula Pkwy to southbound Pechanga Pkwy. The contractor for the Pechanga Pkwy PW06-11 I Consultant: Cozad &Fox Mayne De La 100% 98% Ph 11 Street Improvements has completed this work, as a change order to their contract. Contract Amount: $29,010 Torre Account No. 210-165-637-58XX French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing A southbound off -Ramp to Jefferson, an auxiliary lane, and widening the bridge over and Interchange Improvements- Phase 1 (PS&E) Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Winchester southbound off -ramp are the components of Consultant: Moffatt & Nichol Phase 1. City continued the design work. Status is as follows: Amend. No. 1: $ 507,881.00 Amend. No. 4: $ 632,058.00 > PS&E - City is preparing 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate. 087,300.0 Amend. No. B: $1,087,300.00 William > Right of Way Establishing limits of dedication. 9 Y- 9 Notes: Becerral > Declaration of Units - Caltrans Approved Metric Exception for this phase. PW07-04 I > Amend. Nos. 1, 4, & 8 amend original agreement Avlin Odviarl 60%(05110) 61 % > Utilities - Pothole of existing utilities within APE are complete. under PW02-11. Amer Attar > Conceptual Landscape/Aesthetics - Concept was selected, with Murrieta, Caltrans, and > Amendment amounts represent portion IBC concurrence. Selection was incorporated into Draft Structures PS&E submittal. appropriated for PW07-04. Other: > Maintenance Agreement - City preparing exhibit for first draft. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGES OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Old Town Gymnasium This projects involves the design of the approximately 9,000 square foot gymnasium Consultant: WLC Architects adjacent the Boys & Girls Club on Pujol Street. WLC is still working on design scenarios Contract Amount: $307,390.00 with Boys and Girls Club Staff. The land is to be utilized as staging area for the Murrieta PW07 05CSD II Account No. 210-190-186 Amer Attar 10%(17209) 5% Creek Improvements project and it will need to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC) for the current design. A time line was established by TCSD for the design and environmental work. This work will start in February 2010. Construction is projected to start in Spring 2011. Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail The project will provide a Class I bicycle trail that connects the existing Santa Gertrudis Extension and Interconnect Kendra Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail at Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail at Alignment Study, Design & Environmental Clearance Hannah- Diaz Road. The City Council approved an agreement with Hall & Foreman at the 11/25/08 PW08-04 11 Consultant: Hall & Foreman, Inc. Meistrell1 70% (0812010) 40% meeting. The kick off meeting was held on 01/08/09. The alignment study has been Contract Amount: $246,865.00 Avlin Ociviar completed. Extension of time for the Bicycle Transportation Account funds was approved Account No. 210-165-739-58XX on 05/01/09. The consultant has submitted 70% plans, specifications and estimate. Nicolas Valley- Assessment District (Liefer Road) This project will study assessment district feasibility and formation, including completing Consultant: David Evans &Associates (DEA) Kendra the street and minor storm drain improvements on the unimproved portions of certain Contract Amount: $120,900.00 Hannah- streets within Nicolas Valley (Liefer Road) area. The City Council approved an agreement PW08-06 II Account No. 210-165-502-58XX Mn Ociarl 11 l A 90% (0212010) 70% for the street improvement design with David Evans and Associates at the 10/28/08 City Attar AmerAmar Council Meeting. The kick off meeting for the design of the street improvements was held on 12/17/08. Consultant has submitted 90% plans, specifications and estimate. Roripaugh Ranch Street Improvements- Phase I Phase I includes the design & construction of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) from Murrieta Construction of Butterfield Stage Road/MHSR Hot Springs Road (MHSR) to Calle Chapos, a portion of MHSR, Calee Chapos, South Consultant: David Evans &Associates (DEA) Loop Rd and making the Fire Station functional. Liens and settlements have been Contract Amount: $304,125 m MaY De La resolved. On 11/24/09, David Evans and Associates' (DEA) contract was awarded to PW09-02 I Account No. 210-165-723-58XX Tome/Amer 0% 0% complete the design. A contract for landscape design is set to go to Council on 1/12/10 to Attar Hirsch & Associates, Inc. Staff is working on the Bid Package. The developer, through Paradigm Engr, is working on completing his MOU obligations. The City Attorney is to review the impacts associated with Paradigm's involvement in regards to the FDIC's new involvement. Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide Kendra This project will install traffic signals at two intersections; Meadows Parkway at Pauba Meadows Parkway at Pauba Road and Rancho Hannah- Road and Rancho California Road at Yukon Road. Notice To Proceed was issued PW09-07 I California Road at Yukon Road Meistrell1 0% (0612010) 0% 12/21/09 for design activities. Completion of Plans and Specifications is anticipated in Consultant: Willdan Engineering Avlin R. June 2010. Contract Amt: $26, 610 Ociviar I-15 / SR-79S Ultimate Interchange The City's consultant is preparing 65% PS&E package for Caltrans review in January PW04-08 I Consultant: RBF Avlin Ociviar 50% (0712010) 25% 2010. Contract Amt: $2, 032, 600 PROJECTS BEING DESIGNED BY STAFF Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road Plans and specifications are 90% complete. City is seeking FEMA funds to remove PW04-07 I ???????? T 0% NIA excess silt deposited within the basin before constructing the access road. Project is on hold until FEMA determination is finalized. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Citywide Slurry Seal Project FY 2009-2010 This project will slurry seal local streets within the Roripaugh Hills Estates, Campus Contractor:xx Chris Verdes and Nicholas Valley Areas. Proposition 1 B funds will be used to fund this project. PW 09-06 1 White/Maym 0% 0% The project received authorization to solicit construction bids at the September 22, 2009 ContractAmount:xx De La Torre City Council Meeting. Project is going to bid in Mid February, 2010. Account Number: Road and Storm Drain Repair at Rancho California Staff is in the data -gathering stage to determine the best method of pipe/roadway repair. Road A video inspection of the pipe's interior was performed on 11/4/09, and revealed evidence Projectwill replace approximately 140 feet of aging of possible corrosion. A physical inspection of the pipes' interior was performed on PW09-08 I corrugated metal pipe under Rancho California Road, Jon Salazarl 0% 0% 12/17/09 with the assistance of a local pipeline contractor which revealed that the pipe east of Hope Drive, with reinforced concrete pipe, and reconstruct that portion ofthe roadway. Amer After wall was essentially in good condition, with some areas of rust in the pipe invert. The approach from this point may take the form of rust removal and application of a protective coating to extend the life of the pipe; no major repair is anticipated. Citywide Storm Drain Improvements- Rancho Staff is modifying existing storm drain plans that were a part of the Diaz Road California Rd at Vincent Moraga Dr Realignment project (Phase 11), but were never constructed due to a conflict with Rancho Design and construct storm drain improvements to California Water District (RCWD) facilities. Draft construction plans have been completed, correct flooding problems during storm events at this location. Jon Salazar) and a Notice to Relocate was issued to RCWD. RCWD has responded with a request to PW09-09 I Amer After 0% 0% incorporate the facility relocation into the City construction contract, and has provided a relocation plan to the City. RCWD relocation plan currently being incorporated into City construction documents; bid package expected to be complete mid -January. Authorization to bid is being requested from City Council at the January 26, 2010 City Council Meeting. Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road Staff is coordinating with a consultant to develop a bid package based on ARAM (Asphalt PW09-10 I Projectwill rebuild 28 feet (width) of roadway on Jon Salazar/ 0% 0% Rubber Aggregate Membrane) technology. Bid package anticipated to be complete mid- Jedediah Smith Road between Temecula Parkway Amer After January; authorization to bid is to be requested from City Council in February. and Cabrillo Ave. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) PROJECTS IN THE PLA TAGE French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing This project will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Interchange and the I and Interchange Improvements (PA & ED) -15/1-215 split. City continued development of the Project Report and Environmental Consultant: Moffatt & Nichol Document. Status is as follows: Agreement Amount: $1,091,693.00 Amend. No. 1: 2,6.0* 21 Amend. No. 2: 21,63030.00 > Draft Project Report - A roved June 2006. I P PP CCO No. 1: 25,000.00 > Project Report - City preparing final report. CCO No. 2: 8,000.00 > Draft Environmental Document - Approved April 2009. CCO No. 3: 18,008.00 > New Connection Report (NCR) - Letter of Acceptability received in July 2008. CCO No. 4: 11,320.00 > Traffic Operations Analysis - Approved 02/05/08. CCO No. 5: 37,645.00 > Exception to 20-yr Traffic Design - Approved 12/17/07. Amend. No. 3: 283,982.52 > Stormwater Data Report - Approved 01/05/10. 7-04 Amend. No. 4: See PW00.00 Amend. No. 5: 169,000.00 > Mandator Design Exceptions - roved 07/18/06. Y g P Approved Amend. No. 6: 110,917.00 William > Advisory Design Exceptions - Approved 07/18/06. Amend. No. 7: 14,573.36 Becerral Avlin > Exception to Ramp Metering Policy - Approved 07/05/06. PW02-11 Amend. No. 8 See PW07-04 Odviarl Amer 90%(03110) 85% > Geometric Approval Drawings - Approved 07/18/06. Amend. No. 9 100,000.00 Attar > Revised Geometric Approval Drawings - Approved 01/11/08. Amend No. 10 414,774.00 > Storm Drain Study- Approved 03/21/08. Notes: Amend. 1 also applies to PW07-04. See PW07 > Floodplain and Scour Analysis Report - Approved Oct 2008. -04 for add'I apportionment. - 'i a > Final Environmental Document - Citypreparing final report. P P g P Other: > Declaration of Units - Request for Metric Exception denied by Caltrans. > Freeway Agreements - Execution pending approval of the Project Report. > Risk Management Plan - Updating as necessary. > Project Charter- 1st draft is under Caltrans review. > Maintenance Agreement - Preparing 1st submittal for Caltrans review. > Financial Plan - Updating as necessary. PROJECTS WAITING IN THE WINGS Temecula Creek Crossing - Access to Highway 79 The project consists of performing an alignment study to set a specific horizontal and South (Temecula Parkway) vertical alignment for an extension of Avenida de Missions southerly to gain vehicular Bridge Alignment Study- Avenida de Missions over Kendraaccess to Loma Linda Road, including a bridge crossing over Temecula Creek. Final PW08-03 II Temecula Creek : ConsultantNolte Associates, Inc. Hannah- Meis[relll Avlin 100% 100% engineering report is complete. Project is pending allocation of funds for design. Contract Amount: $87,923.00 Odviar Account No. 210-165-677-58XX Multi -Trails System- Margarita Road Under Crossing This project will construct a trail for bicycles and pedestrians along Santa Gertrudis Creek Consultant: LAN Engineering under Margarita Road. Data regarding existing utilities are being incorporated into the PW04-13 I Contract Amount: $114,426.00 William 100% 100% design. RCFC has provided an Encroachment Permit. Plans & Specs are complete. This Becerm project cannot be constructed until adequate funds are identified. An application was submitted for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds on 12/1/06. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Auxiliary Lanes on I-15 in Temecula A feasibility study will be conducted to determine if auxiliary lanes can be added between on and off -ramps on 1-15 in Temecula to improve the freeway operation. An RFP to PW06-17 I Amer Attar conduct the study was published on the City's website on 02/14/07. Proposals were received on 03/16/07. The City reviewed the proposals and selected a consultant. Due to funding constraints, this project is being delayed indefinitely. RIGHT OF WAY RELATED PROJECTS French Valley Parkway/ I-15 Overcrossing and William The review appraisal is complete. Caltrans has approved the appraisals. The City Council PW02-11 I Interchange, Project Report (PR) Becerral Amer NIA NIA reviewed this matter in Closed Session on June 9, 2009. Negotiations with two property Attar owners have begun and are on -going Butterfield Stage Road - Roripaugh CFD The developer will perform his MOU commitments and Obtain the required RAN. He was Project Description: Right -of -Way issues associated directed to first focus on the RAN issues related to properties within Ph 1 of the project. He with the construction of specific improvements (BSR, Mayne De La was given City Attorney -approved release forms that the property owners must sign CFD 03-02 MHSR, fire station, etc.) Tome/Amer releasing the developer from all obligations. To date, the developer hasn't obtained any Contractor: N/A; Contract: N/A Attar signed release form. The FDIC has taken over the bank, Amtrust. Any funds to be disbursed will have to be approved by the FDIC. Pechanga Parkway, Dual Right Turn Lanes from Purchase & Sale Agreement was sent to the property Owner. He did not accepted the Temecula Parkway City's offer. City Council adopted the Resolution of Necessity at the 11/25/08 meeting. A check was prepared for court deposit to file eminent domain lawsuit. Lawsuit was fled in PW 06-11 Amer Attar mid February. The City gained possession of the property as of June 5, 2009. Settlement papers were signed by the property owner. The City attorney office is fling these papers with the courts so the funds can be disbursed to the property owner and the matter can be closed. Pechanga Parkway, Mitigation Land Purchase & Sale Agreement was sent to the property Owner. He has not accepted the City's offer. City Council has adopted the Resolution of Necessity at the 11/25/08 meeting. A check was prepared for court deposit for eminent domain lawsuit. Lawsuit was fled in mid February. The City is working on the legal documents to gain possession of the PW 99-11 Amer Attar property. The California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) is now involved due to impacts to properties that has Conservation Easements on them. This will require discussions with them to sign off the acquisition documents. The City is waiting for a letter from the DFG attorney with their position. Diaz Road Realignment- Sale of Surplus Land Staff met with Outdoor Channel. City Council approved the counter offer. Purchase and Sale Agreement was prepared by City and it was presented to the buyer. The agreement has been agreed upon by the City and the buyer. A new revised agreement that include the lot line adjustment was drafted. The City Council approved the Purchase and Sale Amer Attar Agreement at the 08-11-09 City Council meeting. Escrow was opened for the sale of this property. Property is still in escrow. Documents are being signed. The Lot Line Adjustment and the Certificate of Compliance have been approved by Planning and they were recorded. Escrow has closed. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Riverside County Flood Control Parcels -Old Town City Attorney and RCFC legal counsel have approved final draft agreements/legals for portions of Museum, Theater and vacant property parcels. RCFC is expected to formally approve on their end in January. With regards to 1 st/Front Street parcel, outstanding Beryl issues are still unresolved concerning agreement language, reduced purchase offer YasAmer Amer Atttarer Am amounts, and verification of legal property boundary based on RCFC Record of Survey. City Attorney is working with County Counsel concerning discrepancies in the agreement/purchase offers; City Staff currently researching accuracy of legal description. Expect resolution to this matter by late January. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension To initiate this right of way work, seven title reports were ordered on 12/2/08. The City received all legals and plats from the consultant. Staff met with the appraiser to go over PW00-26 Amer Attar what needs to be acquired. The appraiser submitted a proposal for this work to the City. A PO is being processed so the work can begin. Property staking will be done to facilitate the appraisal process. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek Will Becerral City accepted the Offer of Dedication that was not accepted by County on Parcel Map PM Beryl 8248, which was recorded on 2/15/1977. Four legals and plats will be prepared by the PW06-04 I Yasinoskyl consultant. Title Reports for the required parcels were ordered. Once legals/plats are Amer Attar received, the City will obtain appraisals. SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS Roripaugh Ranch CFD Staff reviewed the submitted Reimbursement Request for the two bridges. Comments were provided to Ashby USA representatives. Meetings were held with the developer CFD 03-02 Annie Bostre- NIA seeking these reimbursements to finalize the numbers. The City Attorney was provided Lei Amer Attar the information. All outstanding liens have been paid. Developer is working on meeting his MOU requirements so monies withheld can be released. CFD 01-02 Harveston CFD Amer Attar NIA No activities during the last period CFD 03-06 Harveston CFD Amer Attar NIA NIA No activities during the last period. CFD 03-01 Crown Hill CFD Amer Attar NIA NIA During the last period, the developer submitted reimbursement request for the retention. Wolf Creek CFD Standard Pacific continues to obtain the required soundwall waivers. As of 09-08-09, 23 waivers have been received by the City. These waivers have been recorded. With respect to properties in foreclosure, Caltrans advised the the developer is to write letters to the CFD 03-03 Amer Attar NIA NIA banks asking them to sign the waivers and that if developer does not hear from them within a reasonable time, they can assume that the bank does not want the wall. In addition, the developer started raising the walls the week of 07/06/09. Work on raising the walls continues. CFD 02-08 Serena Hills CFD Amer Attar NIA NIA No activities during the last period. Quarterly Review- Tracking, preparing, and Various Projects. Various I processing Federal, State and TUMF Funds Julie Dauer On -going NIA Reimbursements CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Contract Administration On -going review of CIP project contracts, amendments, extra work authorizations & Various I Julie Dauer On -going NIA change orders and maintaining budget accounts. Providing assistance to staff in processing invoices for all CIP division projects. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail Project is complete and balance of federal funding to be requested for reimbursement and PW01-27 I Julie Dauer NIA NIA submitted along with 'Final Report of Expenditures' for project closeout. Surface Transportation Program (STP) - De Portola Federal funding reimbursement requests will be submitted to Caltrans as project PW06-10 I Road Pavement Rehabilitation Julie Dauer NIA NIA progresses. $458,990 STP funds PW03-05 I Highway Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation Julie Dauer NIA NIA Total HBRR funds $4,337,970. Program (HBRR) - Main Street Bridge SR2S- Safe Routes to School Program - Ped/Bicycle Awaiting approval of environmental document from Caltrans. SR2S funding has been PW05-11 I Bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek to Chaparral Hig Julie Dauer NIA NIA awarded in the amount of $425,520. In addition to SR2S funding we have been awarded $132,000 in SB821 funding. Various I Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Julie Dauer NIA NIA TUMF reimbursement requests prepared quarterly for submittal to WRCOG & RCTC. TE - Transportation Enhancement Received approval of our 'Request for Allocation' through the CTC and have submitted our PW06-15 I Winchester Road/State Route 79 North Corridor Julie Dauer NIA NIA RFA package to Caltrans for'Authorization to Proceed with Construction'. Total funds Beautification Projec awarded per TE Funding adjustments $1,646,000. Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements- Project is essentially complete and upon payment of retention to contractor will process PW99-11 I Public Land & Highways Funded Julie Dauer NIA NIA 'Final Report of Expenditures' and final invoice for reimbursement to Caltrans. Total PLH (Phase II) funding is $4,000,000. Various I Bond Releases Julie Dauer NIA NIA Continued review of CIP project bonds scheduled for release. 2006/07 Bicycle Transportation Account Cooperative Work Agreement (CWA) has been approved by Caltrans, BTA division. The BTA Funds CWA will extend the terms of the original agreement to allow for the continuation of project PW08-04 I Santa Gertrudis Creek Bicycle Trail Extension and Julie Dauer NIA NIA design. 2006/07 BTA funds approved for the planning & preliminary engineering and total Interconnect award of $395,000. Standardize the format of the Specifications for all Specifications library is continuously being updated and amended. The boiler -plate section projects is also being reviewed and updated. Federal Specifications were updated and David McBride On -going NIA standardized for De-Portola and Rancho California Road. All specifications were updated to 2009. Federal specifications were updated to new DBE regulations. Circulation Element Implement Plan This Project is to identify all future projects necessary so that the current Circulation Element of the General Plan is fully implemented. Data entry into the database is complete. The tasks of field verification, cost estimates preparation, and aerial mapping Amer Attar NIA NIA have all been completed. The information gathering and the reporting stage of this project is complete. CIP staff will work with GIS to automate the availability and the update of the information. Update Plans to Reflect As -Built Conditions for All City receives blue prints from many contractors marked with As -Built conditions for various Recent Projects projects. Some of these As -Built conditions have never been transferred to the project On -going 9 9 NIA mylars. As -Built plans will be created for all recent projects, if it was not done at the time of submission. CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 11 OF 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS - MONTHLY WORK PROGRESS SHEET 1/15/2010 %TIME PROJECT PRIORITY PROJECT NAME, DESCRIPTION, PROJECT COMPLETE CONTRACT CURRENT STATUS & PROGRESS NO CONTRACTOR & CONTRACT $'s ENGINEER (Est. comp./ PAID ($) bid date) Consultant Selection Information is now available on the City's web -site on how to be placed on the consultant Various I Julie Dauer On -going NIA (vendor) list and data stored in this manner will be source for future RFP's & RFQ's for upcoming projects. Pavement Rehabilitation - Rancho California Road Project is currently in construction and preparation of reimbursement invoices will be PW06-14 I (STPL) Julie Dauer NIA NIA prepared for submittal to Caltrans as project progresses. STPL funding of $2,958,000. Pavement Rehabilitation of Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Butterfield Stage Road Citywide Traffic Light Synchronization System City has been awarded $515,000 in Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP) funding Purchase, install & implement an adaptive traffic (Prop 1 B). Our request for Allocation has been submitted to the California Transportation TBD I signal synchronization system along six corridors Julie Dauer NIA NIA Commission (CTC) for placement on their agenda for November 12, 2009 meeting. State within the City. to sell additional bonds to meet allocation requests. 14FI-11:111r_l0I►yi1:1:101TANI►yiINIL1119:1:1110]N161K Monthly Activity Report December 2009 / January 2010 Prepared by: Amer Attar Submitted by: Greg Butler Date: 1 /26/2010 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Roripaugh Ranch Fire Station The majority of work was completed by April of 2006. The remaining work will be completed when the mainline utilities are installed, which the City is undertaking - estimated start in March of 2010. A fire engine/truck venting system (requested/added on 2/06) will be installed when the Contractor re- mobilizes, this cost is also included in the approved change order total. City Property at Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway (Northwest RDA Property) - Rough Grading This project provided for the rough grading of the vacant City property at Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. All work was completed on March 28, 2007. Site restoration, including hydroseeding, was completed in December of 2008. A notice of completion was approved by the City Council at the 1/13/09 meeting. Ongoing maintenance expenses will be incurred for NPDES measures until such time the property is developed. Minor BMP improvements were completed in late November of 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Project -Town Square and Mercedes & Main Street This project involves construction of the Town Square and street improvements on Mercedes & Main Streets. The project was awarded on March 18, 2008. All storm drain, sewer, and water improvements are complete and all the roadways are paved. Work near completion in the Town Square and the Fountain is fully functional. Various specialty items and added work extended the completion date through December 2009. Pechanga Parkway Phase II Street Improvements from Temecula Parkway to City Limits @ Pechanga Rd. This project widens Pechanga Pkwy to its ultimate width from Temecula Pkwy to Pechanga Rd. The contractor has essentially completed the improvements including the "dual right turn lanes" work. The remaining work includes punch list items to include ridability and EMWD manhole adjustments. There is a claim to the City from EMWD regarding damages to their facilities that the contractor has allegedly caused. The project is substantially complete, as of August 2009. Old Town Infrastructure Projects - Parking Structure & Office/Retail Frontage This project includes the site grading and retaining walls for the Civic Center & the Parking Structure site as well as construction of a parking structure, including office frontage shell space. Work is ongoing on exterior facade, landscaping and hardscapes. Ronald Reagan Sports Park Channel Silt Removal & Desiltation Pond This project includes restoring the Best Management Practices (BMP) of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and the requirements of RWQCB by desilting the basin located near the Sports Park. 401 Certification, Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Nationwide Permits have been acquired. Bids were opened on 08/26/08 and awarded on 12/08/09. Notice to Proceed effective 01/01/10. Construction has begun. Contractor is working on the dewatering process to grade the site. Old Town Civic Center This project will construct the Old Town Civic Center. City Council awarded the contract to Edge Development, Inc. on 09/09/08. Edge began work on 4/8/09. Work is ongoing on steel stud framing, and rough in of mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Temecula Community Center Expansion Work began on January 13, 2009. The building is complete SAFE has moved in. Exterior punchlist is pending. The Escallier house and barn have been fumigated for termites. Dry rot & termite infested wood has been removed and replaced. Staff has reviewed 100% Plans and edits are required, the consultant agreement amendment to perform this additional work was approved by City Council on 11/10/09. Staff is the reviewing the final plans and specifications after incorporating Building & Safety corrections. Project bidding is scheduled for the end of January. Redhawk Park Improvements This project will add amenities, which include ADA accessible parking, a restroom, a half -court basketball court, and permanent dog park at Redhawk Community Park. As part of this project, a seatwall will be installed at Sunset Park. The Notice To Proceed was issued 12/21/09. Construction activities will begin in January 2010. Completion is anticipated in June 2010. De Portola Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project (from Jedediah Smith to Margarita) This project involves rehabilitating De Portola Rd pavement from Jedediah Smith to Margarita Rd. This is a federally funded project. Construction began the week of 3/16/09. Catch basin filter insert installation is the only remaining item of contract work. Change order work involving modification of an existing drainage structure is complete with the exception of hydroseeding a drainage channel, set to be done the week of 1/11. Specified catch basin filters have been found to be incompatible, and will need to be re-specified/re-ordered. Final installation to take place before the end of January. Pavement Rehabilitation Rancho California Road (Ynez to East City Limit) - STPL Project This project will rehabilitate Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the City limits on the east. Construction began on June 3, 2009 and is anticipated to be completed by the end of January 2010. The contractor is working in the final section between Meadows Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. Winchester Road / State Route 79 North - North Corridor Beautification This federally funded project will design and construct landscaping and irrigation enhancements to the existing raised medians along Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the easterly City limits. The City received construction authorization from Caltrans. The City Council approved the plans and specifications at the 10/27/09 meeting. Bids were opened on 11/30/09. This project was awarded at the 12/08/09 City Council meeting to Belaire-West Landscape. The award amount was $920,027. Construction is scheduled to start some time after March 1, 2010. Traffic Signal Interconnect Equipment Installation This project will install traffic signal interconnect equipment on Margarita Road, from Rancho California Road to Pio Pico Road. The Notice to Proceed letter was given to the contractor to start on November 23, 2009 for a 50-work day duration. Construction continues. :111110]ME" &IIL1IQ*1NL1I Re -Stripe Route 79 South to 8 lanes from Pechanga Parkway to 1-15 This project will provide four lanes in each direction on Temecula Parkway (formerly State Route 79 South) from 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway. The City is working to meet Caltrans requirements to do the striping. Pechanga Parkway Storm Drain Improvements - Environmental Mitigation This project includes construction of new wetlands for the Wolf Valley Creek Channel Improvements - Stage I. The wetlands will be created through construction of new landscape/irrigation systems. The site is located along the north bank of Temecula Creek (within flood-plain/way areas). The environmental regulatory agencies have approved this new mitigation area. Mylars are ready for signature. Offers for purchase of the properties were made and City Council adopted a Resolution of Necessity to acquire the property on 11/25/08. The proposed improvements can't be implemented until the City obtains possession of the properties. The California Department of Fish & Game will have to sign off on this acquisition since they have jurisdiction over land the City will use for access. Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension from Commerce Center to Diaz Rd The project includes the extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz Road with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. Coordination with RCFC & WCD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state environmental regulatory agencies is required. The 100% completion plans were submitted on November 16, 2009. They were returned to the consultant for final red -line correction with final submittal in January. Extension of time is going to be granted to consultant until March 31, 2010 to finalize plans. Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement) This project will replace the existing Main Street Bridge over Murrieta Creek. Design consultant Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) and the City are continuing to pursue environmental permitting and coordination issues associated with pursuing the bridge replacement as a project separate from the Army Corps of Engineer's Murrieta Creek Improvement project. Comments on the environmental technical reports were received from Caltrans on 4/28/09, and are being addressed by the consultant. The draft 100% PS&E package was received from the design consultant on 2/17/09, and staff review is complete. Comments on draft 100% plans resubmitted to design consultant 8/31/09. An inter -agency meeting was held on 9/16/09 to determine mitigation requirements for this project. The outcome of this meeting was that the City will be required to mitigate for temporary vegetation loss incurred during construction, all other mitigation will be included in the USACOE overall Murrieta Creek flood control project. The environmental submittal/review process will now move forward accordingly. Development of a mitigation plan for the temporary impacts is not part of the design consultant's original scope, and a change order will be required. Proposal has been reviewed and approved for the mitigation plan, expected delivery the week of Jan. 18, 2010. Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Over Santa Gertrudis Creek This project includes the construction of an approx. 150' ped/bike bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek near Chaparral H.S. This is a federally funded project, which will involve a NEPA document. The approved Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) form was received from Caltrans on 12/03/08, technical reports were submitted to Caltrans on 5/13/09. Staff comments on draft 100% plans were returned to consultant on 5/27/09. Comments on environmental technical reports received from Caltrans in June, and have been addressed by City staff and consultants. Environmental technical reports (second submittal) are under review by Caltrans; comments on second submittal are anticipated from Caltrans by 1/15/10. Western Bypass Bridge Over Murrieta Creek This project involves the design, environmental clearance, and construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek at the westerly terminus of Western Bypass and an extension of Pujol Street to the new structure. Once constructed, this will serve as the southerly connection of the Western Bypass Corridor. Design is underway. Geotechnical investigations have been initiated and 90% Plans and Specs are being reviewed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. Applications to the various environmental agencies have been submitted. Temecula Park and Ride (79 South) This project will design and construct a park and ride facility on Temecula Parkway (formerly 79 South) at La Paz. The 70% design drawings were returned to AAE for revision and resubmittal. City and consultant are discussing some of the comments. The consultant is working to finalize the plans. 90% submittal is expected in February. Pechanga Pkwy-Dual Right Turn Lanes from Temecula Parkway (SR 79S) This project included the design and construction of 2 right -turn lanes on eastbound Temecula Pkwy to southbound Pechanga Pkwy. The Pechanga Pkwy Ph II Street Improvements' contractor has completed this work, as a change order to their contract. French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements - Phase 1 (PS&E) A southbound off -Ramp to Jefferson, an auxiliary lane, and widening the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Winchester southbound off -ramp are the components of Phase 1. City continued the design work. Status is as follows: > PS&E - City is preparing 95% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate. > Right of Way - Establishing limits of dedication. > Declaration of Units - Caltrans Approved Metric Exception for this phase. > Utilities - Pothole of existing utilities within APE are complete. > Conceptual Landscape/Aesthetics - Concept was selected, with Murrieta, Caltrans, and IBC concurrence. Selection was incorporated into Draft Structures PS&E submittal. Other: > Maintenance Agreement - City preparing exhibit for first draft. Old Town Gymnasium This projects involves the design of the approximately 9,000 square foot gymnasium adjacent the Boys & Girls Club on Pujol Street. WLC is still working on design scenarios with Boys and Girls Club Staff. The land is to be utilized as staging area for the Murrieta Creek Improvements project and it will need to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC) for the current design. A time line was established by TCSD for the design and environmental work. This work will start in February 2010. Construction is projected to start in Spring 2011. Long Canyon Detention Basin - Access Road Plans and specifications are 90% complete. City is seeking FEMA funds to remove excess silt deposited within the basin before constructing the access road. Project is on hold until FEMA determination is finalized. Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect The project will provide a Class I bicycle trail that connects the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail at Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail at Diaz Road. The City Council approved an agreement with Hall & Foreman at the 11/25/08 meeting. The kick off meeting was held on 01/08/09. The alignment study has been completed. Extension of time for the Bicycle Transportation Account funds was approved on 05/01/09. The consultant has submitted 70% plans, specifications and estimate. Nicolas Valley - Assessment District (Liefer Road) This project will study assessment district feasibility and formation, including completing the street and minor storm drain improvements on the unimproved portions of certain streets within Nicolas Valley (Liefer Road) area. The City Council approved an agreement for the street improvement design with David Evans and Associates at the 10/28/08 City Council Meeting. The kick off meeting for the design of the street improvements was held on 12/17/08. Consultant is preparing 90% plans, specifications and estimate. Roripaugh Ranch Street Improvements - Phase I Phase I includes the design & construction of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) to Calle Chapos, a portion of MHSR, Calle Chapos, South Loop Rd and making the Fire Station functional. Liens and settlements have been resolved. On 11/24/09, David Evans and Associates' (DEA) contract was awarded to complete the design. A contract for landscape design is set to go to Council on 1/12/10 to Hirsch & Associates, Inc. Staff is working on the Bid Package. The developer, through Paradigm Engr, is working on completing his MOU obligations. The City Attorney is to review the impacts associated with Paradigm's involvement in regards to the FDIC's new involvement. Citywide Slurry Seal Project FY 2009-2010 This project will slurry seal local streets within the Roripaugh Hills Estates, Campus Verdes and Nicholas Valley Areas. Proposition 1 B funds will be used to fund this project. The project received authorization to solicit construction bids at the September 22, 2009 City Council Meeting. Project is going to bid in Mid February, 2010. Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide This project will install traffic signals at two intersections, Meadows Parkway at Pauba Road and Rancho California Road at Yukon Road. Notice To Proceed was issued 12/21/09 for design activities. Completion of Plans and Specifications is anticipated in June 2010. Road and Storm Drain Repair at Rancho California Road Staff is in the data -gathering stage to determine the best method of pipe/roadway repair. A video inspection of the pipe's interior was performed on 11/4/09, and revealed evidence of possible corrosion. A physical inspection of the pipes' interior was performed on 12/17/09 with the assistance of a local pipeline contractor which revealed that the pipe wall was essentially in good condition, with some areas of rust in the pipe invert. The approach from this point may take the form of rust removal and application of a protective coating to extend the life of the pipe, no major repair is anticipated. Citywide Storm Drain Improvements - Rancho California Rd at Vincent Moraga Dr Staff is modifying existing storm drain plans that were a part of the Diaz Road Realignment project (Phase II), but were never constructed due to a conflict with Rancho California Water District (RCWD) facilities. Draft construction plans have been completed, and a Notice to Relocate was issued to RCWD. RCWD has responded with a request to incorporate the facility relocation into the City construction contract, and has provided a relocation plan to the City. RCWD relocation plan currently being incorporated into City construction documents, bid package expected to be complete mid -January. Authorization to bid is being requested from City Council at the January 26, 2010 City Council Meeting. Road Reconstruction at Jedediah Smith Road Staff is coordinating with a consultant to develop a bid package based on ARAM (Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane) technology. Bid package anticipated to be complete mid -January, authorization to bid is to be requested from City Council in February. 1-15 / SR-79S Ultimate Interchange The City's consultant is preparing 65% PS&E package for Caltrans review in January 2010. nell]*@1&11LlII:I ;a»_lLlILlI ILl [elm r_W0 French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over -Crossing and Interchange Improvements (PA & ED) This project will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Interchange and the 1-15/1-215 split City continued development of the Project Report and Environmental Document. Status is as follows: > Draft Project Report - Approved June 2006. > Project Report - City preparing final report. > Draft Environmental Document - Approved April 2009. > New Connection Report (NCR) - Letter of Acceptability received in July 2008. > Traffic Operations Analysis - Approved 02/05/08. > Exception to 20-yr Traffic Design - Approved 12/17/07. > Stormwater Data Report - Approved 01/05/10. > Mandatory Design Exceptions - Approved 07/18/06. > Advisory Design Exceptions - Approved 07/18/06. > Exception to Ramp Metering Policy - Approved 07/05/06. > Geometric Approval Drawings - Approved 07/18/06. > Revised Geometric Approval Drawings - Approved 01/11/08. > Storm Drain Study - Approved 03/21/08. > Floodplain and Scour Analysis Report - Approved Oct 2008. > Final Environmental Document - City preparing final report. Other: > Declaration of Units - Request for Metric Exception denied by Caltrans. > Freeway Agreements - Execution pending approval of the Project Report. > Risk Management Plan - Updating as necessary. > Project Charter - 1st draft is under Caltrans review. > Maintenance Agreement - Preparing 1st submittal for Caltrans review. > Financial Plan - Updating as necessary. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Supervisoor� .. DATE: January13, 2010 1989 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - December, 2009 The following activities wereperformedby Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of December, 2009: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 49 B. Total signs installed 23 C. Total signs repaired It. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 57 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 8,621 B. Total Tons 35.5 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 321 B. Down Spouts 0 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 500 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations 128 B. Total S.F. 12,237 VII. STENCILING A. 22 New and repainted legends B. 180 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping C. 0 Bull Nose D. 0 Thermal Plastic RWAiNTAINNOACTRPT Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 85 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 60 service order requests for the month of November, 2009. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 204.5 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of December. 2009 was $55,740.00 compared to 179.914.14 for the month of November. 2009. Account No.5402 $25,134.00 Account No. 5401 $ - 0 - Account No. 999-5402 $ - 0 - Electronic Copies: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer - (Capital Improvements) Dan York, City Engineer Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer - (Traffic Division) RAMAINTAIMMOACTRPr DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Date Submitted: January13, 2010 MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT Submitted By: Greg Butler STREET MAINTENANCE Prepared By: Rodney Tidwell FISCAL YEAR 2009 - 2010 �riil QUARTER WORK WORK -:, WORK TOTAL COST TOTAL COST COMPLETED `COST FOR. COMPLETED COST FOR COMPLETED COST FOR FOR THIS FOR LAST ,SCOPEOF WORK OCT. '09 .:. OCT.'09 l 1VOV.=09 ., NOV 09_ DEC 09 OEC.'09 FISCAL YEA FISCALYEAR ASPHALT AC Square Footage: 10,681 $31,722.67 3,683 $10 938 51 8 621 �$25 604 31 $132,723.36 $220,978.22 - Tons: 72 $0.00 16 $0.00 =' 36�` $0.00 $0.00 \` SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER REPAIR Square Footage: 0 $0.00 0 $7 575 00 - 0 ` $0 00 $7,575.00 $0.00 PCC Yards: 0 - $0.00 0 ,-, $0.00 0 $0 00 j $0.00 $23,765.00 x- STRIPING LINEAR FEET: _ \,< 0 $0.00 1,972,023 $133,643.13 ,\180 $12,60 $134,036.43 $131,386.09 IN-HOUSE PAINTING LEGENDS: 366 $2,928.00 342 $2 736 00 >' �_ ,22 $176 00' $19,352.00 $28,408.00 SIGNS REPLACED -�_ Material: 58 $2,900.00 37 $1 850 00 49 $2 450 00 $17,750.OD $32,500.00 Labor: $1,630.62 $97643 � �$129311z $6,201.65 $17,153.60 SIGNS INSTALLED - Material: 36 $1,800.00 11 $55000 _� �� $1,15000.' $5,90D.00 $4,760.00 Labor: $950.04 �23 $29029 $606 97 -: $3,114.02 $2,506.66 GRAFFITI Square Footage: 24,030 6,415 DRAINAGE CHANNELS CLEANED = - Basins: 284 $7,494.76 361 $9 262 89 327, $8 477 f 9 - $50,418.93 $109,070.57 Channels: 0 $0.00 2 $14 925 00 : -- 0 - $0 00, $14,925.00 $103,237.78 IN-HOUSE TREES TRIMMED: - 179 $4,723.81 34 $89726 60 ,$I,Q83,40'. $12,535.25 $11,453.26 SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS: 58 60 $5 �- AFTER HOURS CALL OUTS: 216 $8,531.64 59 $2,335.81 205 $8,09815=: $30,167.56 $48,438.36 R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT: 0 R:UNAINTAINVOACTRPT Asphalt Square Feet Concrete Square Feet Drainage Channels TOTAL COSTS CONTRACT STRIPING Striping Linear Feet Sandblasting Linear Feet TOTAL COSTS TREE CONTRACTORS Trees Trimmed Trees Removed TOTAL COSTS R.O.W. SPRAYING SQ. FT. TOTAL COSTS CITY MAINTENANCE CREW Signs Replaced Signs Installed Catch Basins Cleaned Trees Trimmed R.O.W. Weed Abatement New & Repainted Legends After Hours Call Outs Service Order Requests DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 Y ; AUGUST f, SEPTEMBER 0 0 0 $0.00 0 0 0 $0.00 0 240 0 $4 590 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 3 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $1,422.00 $0.00 175,000 0 0 0 C 0 20C 0 2 $0.00 $22,500.00 0 1,972,023 0 0 $0.00 $133.543.14 2 308 0 5 X.00 $17,096.00 2,600 0 20 33 38 58 41 6 1 36 211 207 513 284 34 67 101 179 0 200 0 2,600 407 855 427 366 176 49 59 216 84 75 81 58 11 351 342 59 60 Date Submitted: 074an40 Submitted By. GREG BUTLER Prepared By: RODNEYTIDWEU- 1 0 808 14 15_6.00 467,600 2,419 7,635 443 1,787 495 7 R PW NTAINWIOACRTPUULY THRU DEC STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of December, 2009 DATE ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST SIZE OF WORK CONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT Date: 12/ 15/09 PARK - N - RIDE REMOVE DEBRIS FROM HOMELESS CAMPS OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AT # 38-09 TEMECULA PARKWAY TOTAL COST $ 2,560.00 Date: 12/21 /09 CITYWIDE APPLICATION OF PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDES IN CITY # 44-09 CHANNELS TOTAL COST $ 6,525.00 Date: 12/21 /09 CITYWIDE APPLICATION OF AQUAMASTER IN CITY CHANNELS, # 39-09 WEED ABATEMENT TOTAL COST $ 9,750.00 CONTRACTOR: _ REPUBLIC'ELECTRIC Date: 12/15/09 "OLD TOWN' STREET LIGHT REPAIRS # 11091032 TOTAL COST $ 1,163.98 CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING Date: 12/ 15/09 ANZA ROAD AT DRYMAN REPLACED DAMAGED GUARD RAIL CAUSED FROM TRAFFIC COLLISION # 1215-1 TOTAL COST $ 2,625.00 Date: 12/30/09 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD REPLACED DAMAGED GUARD RAIL CAUSED FROM # 1230-1 TRAFFIC COLLISION TOTAL COST $ 4,483.00 CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Date: 12/21 /09 PARK - N - RIDE RELOCATE K-RAIL TO PARK -N- RIDE OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AT # 296 TEMECULA PARKWAY TOTAL COST $ 3,500.00 7-7 CONTRACTOR: , ,WEST CO AST;ARBORIS'I'S, INC. ,. Date: 12/15/09 CITYWIDE TREE PRUNING AND TREE REMOVAL # 62726 TOTAL COST $ 25,134.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 - 0 - TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ 25,134.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 - 0 - RAMAINTAIMMOACTRn CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 DATE LOCf1TION A." SCOPE OF WORK .. S.F. TOTAL" TONS 12/02/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ POTHOLES 7 TEMP 27479 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE POTHOLES 18 TEMP 12/03/09 JEFFERSON AT VIA MONTEZUMA POTHOLES 2 TEMP MAIN STREET AT MERCEDES AC O/L 170 2.5 12/07/09 RAINBOW CANYON POTHOLES 4 TEMP YNEZ AT JEDEDIAH SMITH POTHOLES 10 TEMP 12/087/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD W/B AT CITY LIMITS POTHOLES 18 TEMP RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLES 48 TEMP LA SERENA AT VIA PUESTA DEL SOL POTHOLES 4 TEMP MARGARITA AT YNEZ POTHOLES 12 TEMP N/B MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD POTHOLES 20 TEMP NICOLAS ROAD POTHOLES 26 TEMP MARGARITA S/B AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLES 6 TEMP PUJOL AT CITY LIMITS E.P. 80 12/09/09 MARGARITA N/B AT PIO PICO POTHOLE 8 TEMP 12/10/09 REDHAWK 300' S/O WOLF VALLEY R & R 185 6 SOLANA AT DEL REY POTHOLE 16 12/14/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ POTHOLE 46 TEMP RAINBOW CANYON POTHOLE 2 JEDEDIAH SMITH AT PESCADO DRIVE POTHOLE 7 MARGARITA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLE 2 12/15/09 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLE 6 WOLF VALLEY AT CAMINO SAN JOSE POTHOLE 10 12/16/09 N/B MARGARITA AT PIO PICO R & R 7,560 16 CITYWIDE POTHOLES 87 3 12/17/09 MARGARITA ROAD POTHOLES 36 2 WINCHESTER POTHOLES 6 MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLES 4 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 DATE Z`OCATION a SCOPE,OEW,OR<K - . S.F.; . TOTAL TONS 12/02/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ POTHOLES 7 TEMP 27479 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE POTHOLES 18 TEMP 12/03/09 JEFFERSON AT VIA MONTEZUMA POTHOLES 2 TEMP MAIN STREET AT MERCEDES AC O/L 170 2.5 12/07/09 RAINBOW CANYON POTHOLES 4 TEMP YNEZ AT JEDEDIAH SMITH POTHOLES 10 TEMP 12/087/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD W/B AT CITY LIMITS POTHOLES 18 TEMP RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLES 48 TEMP LA SERENA AT VIA PUESTA DEL SOL POTHOLES 4 TEMP MARGARITA AT YNEZ POTHOLES 12 TEMP N/B MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD POTHOLES 20 TEMP NICOLAS ROAD POTHOLES 26 TEMP MARGARITA S/B AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLES 6 TEMP PUJOL AT CITY LIMITS EDGE OF PAVEMENT 80 12/09/09 MARGARITA N/B AT PIO PICO POTHOLE 8 TEMP 12/10/09 REDHAWK 300' S/O WOLF VALLEY R & R 185 6 SOLANA AT DEL REY POTHOLE 16 12/14/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YNEZ POTHOLE 46 TEMP RAINBOW CANYON POTHOLE 2 JEDEDIAH SMITH AT PESCADO DRIVE POTHOLE 7 MARGARITA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLE 2 12/15/09 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLE 6 WOLF VALLEY AT CAMINO SAN JOSE POTHOLE 10 12/16/09 N/B MARGARITA AT PIO PICO R & R 7,560 16 CITYWIDE POTHOLES 87 3 12/17/09 MARGARITA ROAD POTHOLES 36 2 WINCHESTER POTHOLES 6 MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLES 4 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 DATE LOCATION WORK COMFliETT 12/01/09 JEFFERSON ROAD CLEANED & CHECKED 6 CATCH BASINS 12/03/09 AREAS #1 & #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 2 CATCH BASINS 12/07/09 CITYWIDE "HOT SPOTS' CLEANED & CHECKED 32 CATCH BASINS 12/08/09 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 67 CATCH BASINS CATCH BASIN - OLD TOWN FRONT STREET CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 9 CATCH BASINS 12/09/09 AREAS #1 & #4 CLEANED & CHECKED 31 CATCH BASINS AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 2 UNDERSIDEWALK 12/10/09 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 25 CATCH BASINS 12/14/09 CITYWIDE "HOT SPOTS' CLEANED & CHECKED 29 CATCH BASINS 12/15/09 FINISHING "HOT SPOTS' CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS 12/16/09 AREA #5 CLEANED & CHECKED 18 CATCH BASINS W INCHESTER AT JEFFERSON CLEANED & CHECKED 1 CATCH BASINS 12/17/09 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS 12/21/09 HOT SPOTS CLEANED & CHECKED 20 CATCH BASINS 12/22/09 HOT SPOTS CLEANED & CHECKED 19 CATCH BASINS 12/28/09 HOT SPOTS CLEANED & CHECKED 20 CATCH BASINS 12/29/09 AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 5 CATCH BASINS 30820 DEL REY CLEANED & CHECKED 1 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 321 R:\MAINTAIN\ W KCMPUTD\CATCHBAS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 DATA QGATTON �..,, . ...,„..., WORKCOIPEETD ,. 12/01/09 N/B 1-15 FWY AT CHANNEL REMOVED 75 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NO. GENERAL KEARNY AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/02/09 MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 300 S.F. OF GRAFFITI JEFFERSON AT DEL RIO REMOVED 9 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DEL RIO AT TEMECULA PIPE REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DEL RIO AT BRIDGE REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RAINBOW CANYON AT BIRDEE DRIVE REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI S/B MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 19 S.F. OF GRAFFITI JEFFERSON AT DEL RIO REMOVED 31 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/04/09 JEFFERSON AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI JEFFERSON AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/07/09 TEMECULA CREEK BRIDGE AT 1-15 FWY REMOVED 7,840 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RAINBOW CANYON AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA PUEBLA AT MONTE VERDE REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT REDHAWK PARKWAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LOMA PARTOLA DRIVE AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/08/09 WINCHESTER AT 1-15 FWY GUARDRAIL REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NO. GENERAL KEARNY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 41123 MEADOWS PARKWAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 FWY AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 FWY AT OVERLAND BRIDGE REMOVED 400 S.F. OF GRAFFITI JEFFERSON AT OVERLAND REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RAINBOW CANYON REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI ' VINTAGE HILLS AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 61 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LONG VALLEY DRIVE AT HUMBER CHANNEL REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R:WMNTA]M W KCMPLTMGRAMTA DATE L,OCAT:TON, ; WORK.COMPLETED 12/08/09 WINCHESTER AT JEFFERSON REMOVED 150 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/09/09 NO. GENERAL KEARNY REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI CERVANTES REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI QUAIL SLOPE AT RUSTIC GLEN REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER CREEK AT RISING HILL REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BEHIND "GRANDMA'S ATTIC" REMOVED 71 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 28500 PUJOL STREET REMOVED 79 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 6T" AT MURRIETA CREEK REMOVED 415 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/14/09 SANTIAGO BRIDGE AT MARGARITA CREEK REMOVED 100 S.F. OF GRAFFITI OLD TOWN COMMUNITY THEATRE REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA EDUARDO AT PECHANGA REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LONG VALLEY AT HUMBER REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI S/B 1-15 FWY AT CIVIC CENTER REMOVED 80 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BEDFORD AT 7-11 REMOVED 62 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT OLD TOWN FRONT REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LOMA LINDA AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/15/09 REDHAWK BRIDGE AT CREEK REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 7 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/17/09 41915 4T" STREET REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/18/09 WOLF CREEK AT LIVE OAK REMOVED 36 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/21/09 MAIN STREET BRIDGE OLD TOWN REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI AVENIDA DE MISSIONS AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI - 30225 CUPENO LANE REMOVED 1 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VAILSIDE DRIVE AT OVERLAND TRAIL REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LONG VALLEY AT HUMBER REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MIRA LOMA AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TARGET CENTER REMOVED 52 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VINTAGE HILLS AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 31 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MORAGA AT MARGARITA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI AVENIDA CIMA DEL SOL AT VIA PUESTA DEL SOL REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YNEZ ROAD AT ABBOTT I REMOVED 125 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R:\ NTMN\WKCMPUD\GRAFFITI\ DATE LOCAT)ON ` WOR&`COMPLETED 12/21/09 YNEZ AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PASEO GALLANTE AT CAMINO SAN DIMAS REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/22/09 MAIN STREET AT MURRIETA CREEK REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI N/B I-15 FWY N/O RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 1 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI N/B I-15 FWY AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 50 S.F. OF GRAFFITI N/B 1-15 FWY AT WINCHESTER OFF -RAMP REMOVED 33 S.F. OF GRAFFITI S/B 1-15 FWY AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA OFF -RAMP REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT I-15 FWY S/B OFF -RAMP REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT I-15 FWY N/B ON -RAMP REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 42234 6T" STREET REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT I-15 FWY ON -RAMP REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI S/B I-15 FWY AT IN-N-OUT REMOVED 29 S.F. OF GRAFFITI N/B 1-15 FWY AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI W/B WOLF VALLEY AT CAMINO OLITE REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WOLF VALLEY AT WOLF CREEK DRIVE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 31739 KLARER WAY REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/23/09 41463 MARGARITA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 28450 PUJOL REMOVED 196 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PUJOL AT 6T" REMOVED 400 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/24/09 1ST BRIDGE REMOVED 64 S.F. OF GRAFFITI ' WINCHESTER AT NICOLAS REMOVED 64 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/28/09 YNEZ AT EMPIRE CREEK REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT ORANGE BLOSSOM REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DE PORTOLA AT CALLE RIVAS REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YUKON AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 104 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YUKON AT ROANOAKE REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI CHANNEL BEHIND TARGET CENTER REMOVED 107 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YNEZ AT EMPIRE CREEK REMOVED 135 S.F. OF GRAFFITI SANTA GERTRUDIS AT WINCHESTER REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NICOLAS AT NO. GENERAL KEARNY I REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R1MAINTAIN\W KCMPLTD\GRAWlTi\ DATE LOCATION„„ , „ WORK C01kI*( TED " . . 12/28/09 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI OVERLAND BRIDGE REMOVED 80 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT HARVESTON WAY REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NEWPORTAT HARVESTON-WAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RUSTIC GLEN AT KNOLL RIDGE REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RUSTIC GLEN AT RAINBOW CREEK REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI ROCK BLUFF AT RAINBOW CREEK REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NICOLAS AT NO. GENERAL KEARNY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NICOLAS AT VIA LOBO REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 40612 WINDSOR ROAD REMOVED 49 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LA SERENA AT PROMENADE REMOVED 13 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NO. GENERAL KEARNY AT CHANTEMAR WAY REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 42112 VIA CUESTA AL SOL REMOVED 1 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI SOLANA AT SKYWOOD DRIVE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI SOLANA AT MARGARITA REMOVED 13 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RAMSEY COURT AT MARGARITA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT LYNDIE LANE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT VIA LAS COLINAS REMOVED I 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI EAST SIDE OF MAIN STREET BRIDGE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 12/29/09 MARGARITA AT DE PORTOLA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YNEZ ROAD AT YNEZ COURT REMOVED 44 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REMOVED 17 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT CAMINO DEL SOL REMOVED 14 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT MARGARITA REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MEADOWS PARKWAY AT DEL PORTOLA REMOVED 52 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT BEDFORD COURT REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MEADOWS PARKWAY AT CAMPANULA REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DE PORTOLA AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REMOVED 38 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DE PORTOLA AT CALLE RIVAS REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LONG VALLEY AT ROANOAKE I REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT 1-15 FWY I REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R:WMNTAIN\ W KCMPLTD\GRAMTI\ DATE LOCATION WORK=COMPLETED 12/30/09 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA RIO TEMECULA AT AVENIDA DE MISSIONS REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT PECHANGA PARKWAY REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO VISTA ATYNEZ REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI AREA #3 REMOVED 188 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT PECHANGA PARKWAY REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO VISTA AT YNEZ REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 12.237 TOTAL LOCATIONS 128 RSMAlN AIMWKCMPLTD\CRAMTR SOUAREFOOTAGE January 10,187 February 4,003 March 11314 April 10945 May 8,028 June 8,932 July 5,340 August 5,661 September 5,339 October 24,030 November 6,415 December 12,237 CITY OF TEMECULA 2009 GRAFFITI REMOVAL TOTAL CALLS January 37 February 30 March 167` April 132 May 74 June 149 July 139 August 116 September 84 October 79 November 100 December 128 Totals for the Year To Date: January 1, 2010 Sq. Foot 112,431 Calls 1,235 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC -n- SO Fr R: NAINMNAIL'CLI RAFATI\GRAMrlT .ARTOIA- CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 DATE REC'D LOCATION. REQUEST DATE WORK COMPLETED 11/10/0' 3087 MASHIE WAY TREE 11/11/09 11/10/09 30167 VILLA ALTU RAS TREE 11/11/09 11/25/09 MARGARITA ATMORAGA DEBRIS 11/26/09 11/30/09 42081 VIA CUESTA AL SOL TREE 12/02/09 12/01/09 PAUBA ROAD (ACROSS FROM RIDGE PARK) ASPHALT 12/02/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT DIAZ ASPHALT 12/02/09 12/02/09 MARGARITA AT TUSCANY RIDGE GRAFFITI 12/02/09 MARGARITA AT TEMECULA ELEMENTARY GRAFFITI 12/02/09 MARGARITA AT MARGARITA PARK GRAFFITI 12/02/09 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD GRAFFITI 12/02/09 MARGARITA AT GREENSTONE DEBRIS 12/03/09 REDHAWK PARKWAY AT TEMECULA PARKWAY DEBRIS 12/02/09 41087 VINTAGE CIRCLE TREE 12/08/09 JEFFERSON AT DEL RIO TREE 12/07/09 12/04/09 6T" AT OLD TOWN FRONT CATCH BASIN 12/04/09 12/07/09 41973 SIXTH STREET STREET LIGHT 12/07/09 YNEZ AT TOWN CENTER CATCH BASIN 12/07/09 JOSEPH ROAD AT NICOLAS ROAD CLOSURE 12/07/09 1-15 FWY AT OVERLAND BRIDGE GRAFFITI 12/08/09 CALLE GIRASOL AT RIVERTON CATCH BASIN 12/07/09 LAKE VIEW AT HARVESTON TREE 12/07/09 FOX AT VIA ANGELES TREE 12/07/09 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST @ ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH CATCH BASIN 12/07/09 MARGARITA AT WINCHESTER CATCH BASIN 12/07/09 28165 JEFFERSON CATCH BASIN 12/07/09 S/B MARGARITA AT SYCAMORE APARTMENTS GRAFFITI 12/07/09 LAUREL CREEK AT MARGARITA GRAFFITI 12/07/09 R:WA1NTAIN\WRKC0MPLTD\S0RS\ DATE REC'D LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK COMPLETED 12/07/09 MARGARITA AT TUSCANY GRAFFITI 12/07/09 MARGARITA AT RAMSEY COURT GRAFFITI 12/07/09 29714 NO. GENERAL KEARNY GRAFFITI 12/07/09 12/08/09 CITYWIDE SIGN ISSUES 12/08/09 12/09/09 29110 VALLEJO DEBRIS 12/09/09 N/B MARGARITA AT AVENIDA CIMA DEL SOL V-DITCH 12/09/09 28450 FELIX VALDEZ GRAFFITI 12/09/09 28450 PUJOL STREET GRAFFITI 12/09/09 33484 CORTE FIGUEROA DEBRIS 12/10/09 12/10/09 S/B DIAZ AT W INCHESTER HAS MAT 12/10/09 RYCREST AT NIGHTVIEW COURT GRAFFITI 12/10/09 43727 BUTTERNUT DRIVE TREE 12/11/09 CORTE CARDENAS AT VIA BARRAZA GRAFFITI 12/11/09 12/12/09 30321 COLINA VERDE TREE 12/12/09 12/14/09 IRONWOOD AT ELM SIGN REPAIR 12/14/09 WOLF VALLEY AT CAMINO SAN JOSE CATCH BASIN 12/15/09 MARGARITA AT MORAGA TREE / DEBRIS 12/14/09 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT MEADOWS PARKWAY POTHOLE 12/15/09 LIEFER ROAD GRADE ROAD 12/14/09 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AT STARBUCKS LIGHT POLE REPAIR 12/17/09 44121 FLORES DRIVE DEBRIS 12/14/09 CALLE PINA COLADA AT VIA NORTE DEBRIS 12/15/09 12/16/09 ESSEX COURT AT CONGRESSIONAL SIGN REPAIR 12/17/09 LA SERENA AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD GUARDRAIL DAMAGE 12/17/09 12/17/09 VIA LOBOS AT NICOLAS DEBRIS 12/17/09 12/18/09 S/B W INCHESTER AT FRONTAGE ROAD DEBRIS 12/18/09 WOLF CREEK AT LIVE OAK -GRAFFITI 12/18/09 12/21/09 AGENA AT SANTA CECILIA ASPHALT REPAIR 12/21/09 4407 NORTHGATE DRIVE TREE 12/21/09 MARGARITA AT MORAGA DEBRIS 12/21/09 39576 JUNE ROAD GRAFFITI 12/21/09 VINTAGE HILLS AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD GRAFFITI 12/21/09 MARGARITA AT MORAGA GRAFFITI 12/21/09 R:WAINTAIMW RKCOMPLTD\SOBS\ DATE REC'D LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK COMPLETED 12/21/09 MARGARITA AT SAGE CANYON GRAFFITI 12/21/09 AVENIDA SIMA DEL SOL AT VIA PUESTA GRAFFITI 12/21/09 OVERLAND AT YNEZ (ABBOTT) GRAFFITI 12/21/09 41486 TEMEKU DRIVE ASPHALT 12/22/09 31727 KLARER LANE GRAFFITI 12/22/09 WOLF VALLEY AT PECHANGA GRAFFITI 12/22/09 MAIN STREET BRIDGE GRAFFITI 12/22/09 42200 6TH STREET GRAFFITI 12/22/09 DE PORTOLA AT VILLA DEL SUR ASPHALT REPAIR 12/21/09 12/24/09 NICOLAS AT WINCHESTER GRAFFITI 12/24/09 12/28/09 PAUBA AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD TREE 12/28/09 MARGARITA AT TUSCANY RIDGE DEBRIS 12/28/09 MARGARITA ATSTONEWOOD DEBRIS 12/28/09 MARGARITA AT ORANGE BLOSSOM GRAFFITI 12/28/09 42112 VIA CUESTA EL SOL GRAFFITI 12/28/09 LA SERENA AT CHARDONNAY HILLS GRAFFITI 12/28/09 OVERLAND BRIDGE GRAFFITI 12/28/09 40612 WINDSOR ROAD GRAFFITI 12/28/09 40657 CALLE KATERINE GRAFFITI 12/28/09 COUTE COELHO DEBRIS 12/29/09 YNEZ ROAD AT YNEZ COURT GRAFFITI 12/29/09 27423 YNEZ ROAD GRAFFITI 12/29/09 12/29/09 JEFFERSON AT SANBORN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 12/29/09 ROANOAKE AT LONG VALLEY DRIVE GRAFFITI 12/30/09 12/30/09 45496 COUTE MARBON TREE 12/30/09 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 85 RIMAlN AIMWRKCOMPLTD\SORS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 1) le,v' LOCTIOi -, M h F WO-RKCOMPLETED 12/01/09 KAHWEA AT CALLE MEDUSA REPAIR R1-1 12/02/09 YNEZ AT WINCHESTER REPLACED "POLICE" SIGN PAUBA AT CALLE CAMELLIA NEW INSTALL W 14-1 2 YNEZ AT SOLANA REPLACED R4-7 YNEZ AT SOLANA REPAIR TYPE K SANTIAGO ROAD NEW INSTALL 7 DELINEATORS 12/03/09 PAUBA AT LA PRIMAVERA REPAIR 3 R26 CALLE PORTOFINO AT SUNNY MEADOWS REPAIR TYPE K DEL RIO AT CALLE CORTEZ REPLACED OM1-3 McCABE AT VIA MEJIA REPLACED C-PACKAGE 12/07/09 MAIN STREET AT COURTYARD NEW INSTALL 2 W1-6; 2 TYPE n YELLOWS 12/08/09 NICOLAS AT WINCHESTER REPLACED 2 R-26 MARGARITA AT WINCHESTER REPAIR R-26 MARGARITA AT PAUBA REPLACE W3-3 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT PAUBA REPLACE R4-7 SOLANA AT MARGARITA REPAIR W3-3 12/09/09 W/B RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT 1-15 FWY REPAIR "WELCOME HOME" SIGN HARVESTON AT LAKE VIEW REPAIR W-14 HARVESTON DRIVE REPAIR R-26 PECHANGA AT PECHANGA PARKWAY REPAIR TYPE "N" YELLOW & W1-7 46040 PASEO GALLANTE REPLACED S1-1 &S4-3 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY REPLACED 51-1 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT BUTTERFIELD REPAIR "WELCOME HOME" SIGN WOLF VALLEY ATREDHAWK REPLACED W3-3 12/10/09 28069 DIAZ ROAD REPLACED 2 DELINEATORS CITYWIDE REPAIR "WELCOME HOME" SIGNS R:NIAINTAIM W KCMPLTD\SIGNS\ DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 12/10/09 LA SERENA AT SO. GENERAL KEARNY REPAIR R26 / 81 12/14/09 YNEZATPAUBA REPAIR R26/81 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT WELTON REPAIR St-1 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT VINTAGE HILLS DR. REPAIR SNS YNEZATPAUBA REPAIR W3-3 12/15/09 NICOLAS ROAD REPAIR R2-40 REDHAWK PARKWAY AT WOLF STORE REPAIR W3-3 12/16/09 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT CROWNE HILL REPLACED R26-81 CAMINO CORTO AT LA SERENA REPLACED SNS VIA PUERTA AT LA SERENA REPLACED SNS WAYNEWOOD AT MARWOOD NEW INSTALL SNS 12/17/09 CONGRESSIONAL AT ESSEX REPAIR SNS RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT 1-15 FWY REPAIR "WELCOME HOME" SIGN 12/18/09 E/B RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MORAGA REPLACED R14-1 W/B RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT PROMENADE REPLACED R14-1 12/21/09 JEFFERSON AT DEL RIO REPLACED R9-3B JEFFERSON AT VIA MONTEZUMA REPLACED R9-3B YNEZ AT PAUBA REPLACED R9-3B PASEO GALLANTE AT SCHOOL REPLACED 3 - R26 (A) 12/22/09 NICOLAS AT WINCHESTER REPLACED 13 DELINEATORS WINCHESTER & RANCHO CALIF. ROAD OFF -RAMPS REPAIRS 9 MISCELLANEOUS SIGNS WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA MEADOWS REPLACED R4-7 12/23/09 CITYWIDE REPAIRS 8 DELINEATORS 12/28/09 TEMECULA PKWY AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE REPLACED R4-7 PECHANGA AT HAZIT MARKET REPAIR R4-7 CALLE MEDUSA AT ENFIELD REPAIR W3-1 NO. GENERAL KEARNY AT CHANTEMAR REPAIR R7-9 MORAGA AT MARGARITA REPAIR W 1-7 & K MARKER OLD TOWN FRONT AT SECOND STREET REPAIR W 1-7 & K MARKER 12/29/09 ANZA AT DRYMAN REPLACED DM3-4 (2) 12/29/09 PRIMROSE AT PECHANGA REPAIRED W3-1 PECHANGA AT VIA GILBERTO REPAIRED R4-7 PECHANGA AT HURON REPAIRED R4-7 R:WAINTAIM W KCMPLTD\SIGNS\ DATEW..ORK COMPLETED , 12/29/09 WABASH REPAIR SNS KAHWEA ROAD REPLACED R-26 CAMPANULA AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REPAIR R1-1 AVENIDA DE MISSIONS REPAIR Wt-6 & TYPE K VIA NORTE AT LA CADENA REPLACED R2-35 KAHWEA REPLACED R11-2 12/31/09 VAIL RANCH PKWY AT CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO NEW INSTALL W1-6 & K MARKER VAIL RANCH AT EASTRIDGE PLACE NEW INSTALL W 1-6 & K MARKER VAIL RANCH AT VIA CORDOBA NEW INSTALL W1-6 & K MARKER VAIL RANCH AT VAN OWEN LANE NEW INSTALL W1-6 & K MARKER REDHAWK AT OVERLAND REPLACED 1 DELINEATOR TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 49 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 23 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 57 R WAINTAIMW KCMPLTDI IGNS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2008 DATE ;, TOCALTOLV" •,-; -,WORK°COMPLETED 12/01/09 WOLF VALLEY BETWEEN PECHANGA AND SAN JOSE REPAINTED 22 LEGENDS 12/17/09 MARGARITA AT SOUTHERN CROSS NEW INSTALL 180 LF RED CURB TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 22 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 180 RWAINTAIMW KCOMPLTMSTRIPING CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 DATE x� s LQCATION,, v WORK COMPLETED 12/01/09 DEL RIO TRIMMED 4 R.O.W. TREES 12/02/09 BORDEAUX AT CHARDONNAY HILLS TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 12/03/09 5T" STREET TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 30560 ESTRADA TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES PAUBA AT CALLE VENTURA TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES PAUBA AT CALLE CAMELLIA TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES CALLE PORTOFINO AT SUNNY MEADOWS TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES WINCHESTER ATJEFFERSON TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES JEFFERSON (PARADE ROUTE) TRIMMED 6 R.O.W. TREES 12/07/09 FOX AT VIA ANGELES TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 12/08/09 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT LA SERENA TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 12/09/09 VIA LA COLINA AT NO. GENERAL KEARNY TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 12/11/09 43727 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 12/22/09 S/B MARGARITA FROM SANTIAGO TO PIO PICO TRIMMED 30 R.O.W. TREES N/B YNEZ BETWEEN PAUBA & RANCHO VISTA TRIMMED 6 R.O.W. TREES 12/28/09 AVENIDAALVARADO TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 60 R9MAINTAIM W RKCOMPLTD\TREE$ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 DATE LOCAIOlY >. ,. ',`.'' W01tK;C©MPI ETED 12/02/09 DEL RIO AT VIA MONTEZUMA ABATED 500 S.F. R.O.W. WEEDS TOTAL S.F. R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 500 R:NIAMTAIM W KCOMPLTD\WEEDS MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance SupervisoKz� DATE: December 7, 2009 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - November, 2009 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of November, 2009: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 37 B. Total signs installed 11 C. Total signs repaired 30 H. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 34 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 3,683 B. Total Tons 16 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 337 B. Down Spouts 14 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 0 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations 100 B. Total S.F. 6,415 VII. STENCILING A. 342 New and repainted legends B. 0 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping C. 0 Bull Nose R1MAINTAIMMOAC RPT Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 60 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 58 service order requests for the month of October, 2009. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 59 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of November. 2009 was $179,914.14 compared to $36,567.00 for the month of October. 2009. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 Electronic Copies: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Dan York, City Engineer Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer 164,989.04 14,925.00 -0- (Capital Irnprovements) (Traffic Division) RAMAIWAIMMOACI'RVf STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of November, 2009 DATE ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF WORK TOTAL COST SIZE CONTRACTOR: WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. Date: 11/06/09 CITYWIDE ANNUAL CITYWIDE TREE TRIMMING TOTAL COST $ 17,096.00 CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING, INC. Date: 11/10/09 # HUMBOLT COURT REMOVE AND REPLACE DAMAGE UNDER THE SIDEWALK AND CURB & GUTTER TOTAL COST $ 7,575.00 Date: 11/24/09 CITYWIDE ASPHALT SAW CUTTING FIOR PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION TOTAL COST $ 6,775.00 Date: TOTAL COST CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE'EXCAVATING Date: 11/03/09 LONG CANYON DETENTION BASIN RE -GRADE BASIN TO CREATE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FOR HABITAT AREA TOTAL COST $ 3,990.00 Date: CALLE FIESTA STORM DRAIN RE -DESIGN DAMAGED STORM DRAIN TOTAL COST $-1Q935.00 CONTRACTOW PACIFIC STRIPING, INC..... Date: 11/05/09 CITYWIDE ANNUAL RESTRIPING OF CITY STREETS TOTAL COST $133,543.14 Date: TOTAL COST TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 14,925.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $164,989.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 -0- R:NMAINTAIN\M0ACTRn DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT STREET MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 2009 - 2010 Date Submitted: December 7, 2009 Submitted By: Greg Butler Prepared By: Rodney Tidwell ^end 4URRT�R WORK, -` - COM(LETED , 'COSTFOR N�-� '�`� COMPLETED COST FOR FOR THIS FOR LAST SCOPE OFmORK' OCT 09 ` '° OCT. '09 0.± ,9 DEC '09 DEC 109 FISCALYEAR FISCALYEAR \ ASPHALT AC Square Footage: 10,681 $31,722.67 -� $106,619.05 $220,978.22 Tons: 72 $0.00 $0.00 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER REPAIR \ �� Square Footage: 0 $0.00 R - $7,575.00 $0.00 PCC Yards: 0 $0.00 $0.00 $23,766.00 STRIPING LINEAR FEET: 0 $0.00 2, - _ _ $134,023.83 $131,385.09 IN-HOUSE PAINTING LEGENDS: 366 $2,928.00 , _ $79,176.00 $28,408.00 SIGNS REPLACED Material: ' 68 $2,900.00 $9,300.00 $32,600.00 Labor: $1,530.62 $4,938.54 $17,153.50 a SIGNS INSTALLED Material: 36 $1,800.00 $4,750.00 $4,760.00 Labor: $950.04 -` $2,507.05 $2,606.66 -� GRAFFITI -- '-- Square Footage: 24,030��.,�� DRAINAGE CHANNELS CLEANED Basins: 284 $7,494.76 $41,947.74 $109,070.57 Channels: 0 $0.00 �.�\ \ �; $14,925.00 $103,237.78 IN-HOUSE TREES TRIMMED: , 0 1M,=_ \1 179 $4,723.81IR BOOM_ $10,951.85 $11,453.26 SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS: `�``�` 58 AFTER HOURS CALL OUTS: 216 $8,531.64 a moo_ i $22,071.41 $46,438.36 R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT: 2,600 $88.40 '_ $156.40 $2,939.96 $736,686.40 TOTALS $62,669.84 �� ;,.� - 1�- . '8.8g'3 $378,841.87 RWAlNTAINMACTRPT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 Date SOrrued'. 07-0e"!) SubmVed By: GREG BUTLER Prepared By: RODNEYTIDWELL :CONTRACTORS ALLY „AUGUST SEPTEMBER ;: OCTOBERMfv DECEMBER 1ST HALF TOTALS 1l YEAR-TO-DATE Asphalt Square Feet 0 0 0 0Q O Concrete Square Feet Drainage Channels 0 0 240 0 AD 440 0 440 TOTAL COSTS 0 0 0 0\`��,\\`` \ - s 2 2 $0.00 $0.00 $4 580.00 $0.00 "2 D $27 090.00 $27,090.00 CONTRACT STRIPING `mac Striping Linear Feet 0 0 0 0`'���=03's 1,972,023 1,972,023 Sandblasting Linear Feet 0 0 0 0 �\ O 0 0 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $133543.14 $133543.14 TREE CONTRACTORS Trees Trimmed 0 3 0 \� 2, 8 313 313 Trees Removed 0 0 0 OS� 5 TOTAL COSTS $0.00 $1422.00 $0.00 $504.00 Ctt136<QQ3 $19022.00 5 $18022.00 R.O.W. SPRAYING SQ. FT TOTAL COSTS 175,000 0 0 2,600 ^_ �� �� 177,600 177,600 $9 750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,827.00 $Q�O� $25 577.00 $25 577.00 h^� CITY MAINTENANCE CREW \� Signs Replaced 20 33 38 58 s 166 186 Signs Installed 41 6 1 36rR may�� \ 98 95 Catch Basins Cleaned 211 207 513 284'�— 1,466 1,466 Trees Trimmed R.O.W. Weed Abatement 34 0 67 200 101 179 �\��: �'-,3q; -- ` 435 435 0 2,600 \�s�q�� 2,600 2,800 ice: New 8 Repainted Legends 407 855 427 368 \.\i-2? 2,397 2,397 After Hours Call Outs 176 49 59 \` y 216 9; Service Order Requests 84 75 � \ 559 559 Graffiti Removal - SQ Ft 5 340 5 661 81 5 339 58 24 \\U�:$915 358 358 030 46 785 46,785 TOTAL COSTS . $9750.00 $1,422.00 $4,590.00 $16,331.00 ��, 173y29�9..: $205,232.14 $205232.74 R:MNTAINVAOACRTPVULY THRU DEC CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009 DATE LOCATION SGQAE OF'WORK"` 1 S.E TOTAL TONS 11/03/09 NICOLAS ROAD POTHOLES 49 WINCHESTER ROAD POTHOLES 12 MARGARITA ROAD POTHOLES 20 MARGARITA ROAD AT RANCHO VISTA ROAD AC O/L 49 MARGARITA ROAD AT TEMECULA PARKWAY AC O/L 150 JOHN WARNER AT CABRILLO AC O/L 360 MARGARITA ROAD AT STONEWOOD POTHOLES 16 4 11/04/09 NICOLAS AT CALLE MEDUSA AC O/L 1,555 CABRILLO AT JOHN WARNER AC O/L 418 6 1/09/09 VINCENT MORAGA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD POTHOLE 6 11/13/09 NICOLAS ROAD POTHOLE 22 11/17/09 CITYWIDE POTHOLE 51 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AT SINGLE OAK AC O/L 24 1 11 /18/09 6TH AT OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AC O/L 150 29301 CORONADO R & R 60 29301 CORONADO O/L 60 29301 CORONADO O/L 390 29301 CORONADO - O/L 225 3.5 11/25/09 YNEZ AT PAUBA POTHOLE 4 11/30/09 CITYWIDE POTHOLES 42 COMMERCE CENTER AT OVERLAND O/L 20 1.5 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 3,683 TOTAL TONS 16 R:WA1NTAINj W KCMPLTMASPHALT.RPR CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009 DATE' Lqu N 4\ORK4CONIPLETED 11/02/09 CITYWIDE "HOT SPOTS" CLEANED & CHECKED 16 CATCH BASINS 11/03/09 CONTINUED "HOT SPOTS' CLEANED & CHECKED 23 CATCH BASINS 11/04/09 IRON BARK CLEANED & CHECKED 4 CATCH BASINS 11/05/09 AREA #1 - CLEANED & CHECKED 43 CATCH BASINS 11/09/09 "HOT SPOTS' CLEANED & CHECKED 18 CATCH BASINS 11/10/09 LOMA LINDA AT CORTE CARA CLEANED & CHECKED 1 CATCH BASIN AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 17 CATCH BASINS 11/12/09 AREA #1 CLEANED & CHECKED 24 CATCH BASINS LOS RANCHITOS AREA CLEANED & CHECKED 14 DOWN SPOUTS 11/16/09 "HOT SPOTS' CLEANED & CHECKED 19 CATCH BASINS FELIX VALDEZ AT 6TH STREET CLEANED & CHECKED 1 CATCH BASIN 11/17/09 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 70 CATCH BASINS 11/18/09 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 63 CATCH BASINS 11/19/09 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 10 CATCH BASINS 11/30/09 CITYWIDE "HOT SPOTS' CLEANED & CHECKED 28 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED& CHECKED 351 R:\MAINTAIMWKCMPLE MCATCHBAS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009 .. WQRK-COMP����D 11/02/09 WINCHESTER BRIDGE REMOVED 194 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NO. GENERAL KEARNY BRIDGE REMOVED 255 S.F. OF GRAFFITI JOSEPH ROAD AT NICOLAS WASH REMOVED 110 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA PUERTA AT LA SERENA REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LA SERENA AT CALLE PINA COLADA REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI GOLD'S GYM REMOVED 490 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA PARKWAY AT I-15 FWY REMOVED 878 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/03/09 TEMECULA CREEK BRIDGE REMOVED 480 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/04/09 ROCK BLUFF AT RAINBOW CREEK REMOVED 9 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/05/09 DEL RIO AT LAS HACIENDAS STREET REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DEL RIO AT JEFFERSON REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA EDUARDO AT JERONIMO REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA CONSUELO AT PECHANGA PARKWAY REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/09/09 15 FWY. AT TEMECULA PARKWAY .REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VINE AT PEACH TREE REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA RIO TEMECULA AT AVENIDA DE MISSIONS REMOVED 127 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VAIL RANCH AT HARMONY REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI CAMINO SAN DIMAS AT PASEO GALLANTE REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 AT TEMECULA CIVIC CENTER REMOVED 48 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA BRIDGE AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 250 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER BRIDGE AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 148 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 13 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DEALER DRIVE AT 15 FWY. REMOVED 32 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/10/09 CAMINO VERDE AT CAMINO DEL ESTE REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA CORDOBA AT CORTE BELLA DONNA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R:WMNTA1MWKCWLTMGRA FITR DATE '. LOCATIONS, , x' t = WORK COMPLETED 11/10/09 VIA CORDOBA AT CORTE ZORITA REMOVED 2" S.F. OF GRAFFITI 31980 VIA CORDOBA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI ACROSS FROM 30417 CUPENO REMOVED 195 S.F. OF GRAFFITI ACROSS FROM 30324 CUPENO REMOVED 80 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/13/09 RAINBOW CANYON REMOVED 15 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TARGET CENTER - REMOVED 33 S.F. OF GRAFFITI SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK AT W INCHESTER REMOVED 88 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LONG VALLEY AT ROANOAKE REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA ATSTONEWOOD REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/16/09 RAINBOW CANYON BRIDGE REMOVED 204 S.F. OF GRAFFITI JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AT TEMECULA PARKWAY REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VAIL RANCH AT CAMINO RUBANO REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DEER HOLLOW AT PEACH TREE REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI SUNNY MEADOWS AT JEREZ LANE REMOVED 17 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT ROYAL CREST REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/17/09 WINCHESTER ROAD ATJEFFERSON REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/19/09 SUNNY MEADOWS REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 41872 CARLETON WAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI NICOLAS AT NO. GENERAL KEARNY REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI W INCHESTER AT RUSTIC GLEN REMOVED 114 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PECHANGA PARKWAY U STORE IT REMOVED 189 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 FWY. AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 1,300 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/20/09 LOMA LINDA AT WOLF CREEK REMOVED 101 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WOLF CREEK SO. AT WOLF CREEK REMOVED 28 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WOLF CREEK NO. AT WOLF CREEK REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/23/09 TARGET CENTER REMOVED 136 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 42101 MORAGA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BEHIND TOWER PLAZA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI EMPIRE CREEK OUTLET REMOVED 13 S.F. OF GRAFFITI K-MART CHANNEL REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RAMAINTAIN\ W KCMPLTG\GRAFFITI\ DATE LOCA i ION=. ;.ORK'COIVIPLEIED 11/23/09 WINCHESTER AT YNEZ BRIDGE REMOVED 110 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA BRIDGE REMOVED 92 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER AT NICOLAS REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI OLD TOWN BUS BENCH AT POST OFFICE REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI S/B 15 FWY AT WINCHESTER OFF RAMP REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MAIN STREET BRIDGE - REMOVED 158 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WOLF CREEK ROAD REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TEMECULA LANE REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LONG VALLEY REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI YUKON AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 14 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT CIMA DEL SOL REMOVED 14 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BIG SAGE AT SO. GENERAL KEARNY REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RIVERTON AT BIG SAGE REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/24/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT 15 FWY. REMOVED 13 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT TOWN CENTER REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT NIGHTHAWK REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 44299 NIGHTHAWK PASS REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 44387 KATE COURT REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI CHAOTE STREET AT CHANNEL REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/25/09 2ND STREET AT OLD TOWN FRONT REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI CHERRY STREET REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA SALTIO AT VIA CORDOBA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI VIA DEL CORONADO AT VIA CORDOBA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 31362 VIA CORDOBA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 31770 VIA CORDOBA REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI LOMA LINDA AT VIA CORDOBA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER BRIDGE AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 11/30/09 FELIX VALDEZ AT 6T" REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RAMAINTAIM W KCMPLTD\GRAFFITI\ DATE LOCATION",,, , WORK COMPLETED 11/30/09 MAIN STREET AT FELIX VALDEZ REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MAIN STREET AT BRIDGE REMOVED 96 S.F. OF GRAFFITI RAINBOW CANYON AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 33 S.F. OF GRAFFITI PECHANGA PARKWAY AT WOLF VALLEY REMOVED 11 S.F. OF GRAFFITI BUTTERFIEL'D BRIDGE AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 120 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 73 S.F. OF GRAFFITI WINCHESTER AT 1-15 FWY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1-15 AT TOWER PLAZA REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI JEFFERSON AT SANBORN REMOVED 38 S.F. OF GRAFFITI MARGARITA AT MORAGA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 6,415 TOTAL LOCATIONS 100 R:WAINTMMWKCMPLTD\GRAF 1TI\ h SQUARE FOOTAGE January 10,187 February 4,003 March 11,314 April 10,945 May 8,028 June 8,932 July 5,340 August 5,661 September 5,339 ; October 24,030 November 6,415 December CITY OF TEMECULA 2009 GRAFFITI REMOVAL TOTAL CALLS January 37 February 30 March 167 April 132 May 74 June 149 July 139 August 116 September 84 October 79 November 100 Totals for the Year To Date: December 1, 2009 Sq. Foot 100,194 Calls 1J07 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC -w SQ Fr R:IMa1NTENANCBGRgMIt RN TICHARTOIJ,a CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009 DATE REC'D LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK COMPLETED 10/28/09 31025 CORTE ANACAPA TREE 11/04/09 10/31/09 VIA PUERTA AT LA SERENA GRAFFITI 10/31/09 11/02/09 PASOS PLACE AT CEBU DRIVE SIGN REPAIR 11/03/09 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT LA SERENA DEBRIS 11/03/09 32066 CALLE NOVELDA CATCH BASIN 11/03/09 42849 SANTA SUZANNE DEBRIS 11/03/09 SANTIAGO AT ORMSBY DEBRIS 11/02/09 11/03/09 IRON BARK COURT CATCH BASIN 11/04/09 11/04/09 PASEO BRILLANTE DEBRIS 11/04/09 29904VIA PUERTA DEL SOL CATCH BASIN 11/04/09 VIA PUESTA AT LA SERENA SIGN REPAIR 11/04/09 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT OLD TOWN FRONT DEBRIS 11/04/09 45504 0LYMPIC TREE 11/04/09 LA SERENA AT VIA HALCON SIGN REPAIR 11/09/09 11/05/09 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT REDHAWK DEBRIS 11/05/09 MARGARITA AT GEORGETOWN SIGN REPAIR 11/05/09 RIDGE PARK DRIVE TREE 11/01/09 - 31589 LOMA LINDA SIDEWALK REPAIR 11/06/09 CORTE CASA AT LOMA LINDA SIGN REPAIR 11/10/09 11/06/09 15 FWY. AT DLR DRIVE GRAFFITI 11/06/09 40200 WALCOTT CATCH BASIN 11/09/09 MARGARITA AT HARVESTON DEBRIS 11/06/09 28401 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TREE 11/09/09 11/09/09 41697 MONTEREY SPRINKLER REPAIR 11/09/09 SOUTHERN CROSS AT SPICA COURT CATCH BASIN 11/10/09 MARGARITA AT MORAGA GRAFFITI 11/09/09 MORAGA AT SAGE APARTMENTS GRAFFITI 11/09/09 MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD GRAFFITI 11/09/09 R:W AINTMM W RKCOMPLTD\SOBS\ DATE REC'D LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK" COMPLETED 11/10/09 30304 CUPENO LANE GRAFFITI 11/10/09 11/10/09 STONEWOOD AT MARGARITA TREE 11/12/09 11/12/09 MORAGA AT MARGARITA DEBRIS 11/13/09 11/16/09 STONEWOOD AT MARGARITA GRAFFITI 11/16/09 ROANOAK AT LONG VALLEY GRAFFITI 11!609 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT COUNTRY GLEN DEBRIS 11/16/09 MARGARITA AT DARTOLO MANHOLE LID 11/17/09 MARGARITA AT DARTOLO MANHOLE LID 11/17/09 YNEZ AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD T.C. 11/16/09 MORAGA AT MARGARITA CHANNEL 11/18/09 S/B 1-15 AT W INCHESTER GRAFFITI 11/16/09 11/17/09 28401 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROADO TREE 11/18/09 SUNNY MEADOWS AT FERMO COURT GRAFFITI 11/17/09 SOUTHERN CROSS AT MARGARITA CABLE BOX 11/18/09 MARWOOD CIRCLE AT WAYNEWOOD SIGN REPAIR 11/18/09 11/19/09 PASOS PLACE AT CEBU SIGN REPAIR 11/!9/09 31918 CORTE-MONTECITO LANDSCAPE 11/19/09 44618 PECHANGA PARKWAY GRAFFITI 11/19/09 11/20/09 WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA MEADOWS DEBRIS 11/20/09 BUTTERFIELD STAGE AT CROWN HILL GRAFFITI 11/20/09 11/23/09 TEMECULA LANE AT CANTERBURY GRAFFITI 11/23/09 RIVERTON AT BRIXTON COVE GRAFFITI 11/23/09 BIG SAGE AT SO. GENERAL KEARNY GRAFFITI 11/23/09 MARGARITA AT STONEWOOD GRAFFITI 11/23/09 TEMECULA PARKWAY AT 15 FWY. DEBRIS 11/23/09 CAMPANULA AT DE PORTOLA SIGN REPAIR / T.C. 11/23/09 RIVERTON AT BRIXTON ASPHALT REPAIR 11/24/09 29721 NIGHTVIEW CIRCLE _ TREE 11/24/09 11/25/09 3170 VIA CORDOBA GRAFFITI 11/25/09 11/29/09 MAIN STREET BRIDGE GRAFFITI 11/29/09 11/30/09 2976 NIGHTVIEW CIRCLE TREE 11/30/09 MARGARITA AT MORAGA GRAFFITI 11/30/09 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 60 R:WAWTAIMWRKCOMPLTD\ ORS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009 DATE LOCATION WORK,COMPLETED 11/02/09 CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO REPLACED R4-7—K MARKER VAIL RANCH AT CINON REPLACED R4-7 — K MARKER 11/3/09 MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN REPAIR R4-7 & K MARKER MARGARITA AT RUSTIC GLEN REPLACED R4-7 & K-MARKER 11/04/09 OLD TOWN FRONT AT TEMECULA PARKWAY REPAIR R26 W INCHESTER AT ENTERPRISE REPLACED R4-7 & K- MARKER 11/05/09 MARGARITA ATGEORGETOWN REPLACED 1 DELINEATOR 11/09/09 CAMPANULA AT MEADOWS REPAIR R2-26 1/12/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT YUKON REPLACED R2-50 11/16/09 HARVESTON WAY AT MENDOCINO REPLACED R2-35 PECHANGA AT PALA ROAD REPAIRED SNS CALLE TAJO AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPAIRED R1-1 11/17/09 PIO PICO AT DE PORTOLA REPAIRED r-26 JOHNSTON AT CORTE GUTIERREZ REPLACED R1-25 / Ri-1 JOHNSTON AT CORTE GUTIERREZ REPAIR SNS SOLANA AT MOTOR CAR PARKWAY REPLACED 1 DELINEATOR 11/19/09 4" AT MERCEDES REPLACED SNS LA SERENA AT VIA HALCON REPLACED ENS' LA SERENA AT VIA PUERTA REPAIR R-26 LA SERENA AT VIA PUERTA REPLACED SNS CAMINO MACON AT McCABE REPLACED R1-1 MEJAATHERENCIL REPAIR R1-1 LOMA LINDA AT CORTE CASA REPLACED CORTE CAMARILLO AT CAMINO ROSALES REPLACED SNS PASEO GALLANTE AT CORTE ZARAGOZA REPAIR SNS CALLE CEBO AT PASOS PLACE REPLACED SNS R:WA1NTAIMW KCMPLTDl lGN& DATE LOCATION ,.. . FORK COMPLETED 11/19/09 WALCOTT AT CALLE GIRASOL NEW -INSTALL (6)Wt-8 NICOLAS AT CALLE GIRASOL REPLACED SNS MEADOWS AT PARDUCCI REPAIRED R4-7 MEADOWS AT PARDUCCI REPLACED R4-7 11/20/09 MARGARITA AT LUCKY CENTER - REPAIR R18-2 VIA ALLRIZO AT PIO PICO REPAIR TYPE K VIA CAVALO REPAIR Rt-1 VIA BEJARANO REPAIR R1-1 & R1-4 11/23/09 CAMPANULA AT DE PORTOLA REPLACED 2 R4-7 & 2 TYPE K MORAGA AT MARGARITA REPAIR R2-40 & R26 COMBO MORAGA AT MARGARITA REPAIR W3-3 SANTIAGO AT YNEZ REPLACED R26 11/24/09 GALLANTE AT VALLEJO REPAIR SNS REDHAWK AT VALLARTA REPAIR R1-1 CALLE BANUELOS AT NIGHTHAWK REPAIR R1-1 CHANNEL AT KATE COURT REPAIR R1-1 11/25/09 CALLE VENTURA AT PAUBA NEW INSTALL W 14-1 11/30/09 PAUBA AT YNEZ REPAIR R-26 WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH AT MADERA REPAIR R1-1 WOLF CREEK AT FIRE STATION 092 NEW INSTALL 3 R-26 & 1 W3-3 PAUBA AT YNEZ REPLACED R26 / 81 TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 37 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 11 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 30 R.WAINTAIMWKCMPLTD\ lGNS\ CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009 DATE LOCATION, . -, WORK COMPLETED 11/02/09 MARGARITA ROAD BETWEEN SANTIAGO & DATE REPAINTED 34 LEGENDS 11/05/09 MARGARITA AT SOLANA TO DATE REPAINTED 45 LEGENDS 11/09/09 MARGARITA / PAUBA TO TEMECULA PARKWAY REPAINTED 31 LEGENDS 11/10/09 MARGARITA / REDHAWK PARKWAY TO TEMECULA PARKWAY REPAINTED 35 LEGENDS 11/12/09 JEFFERSON FROM OVERLAND TO CHERRY REPAINTED 14 LEGENDS NICOLAS FROM WINCHESTER TO NO. GENERAL KEARNY REPAINTED 14 LEGENDS 11/16/09 JEFFERSON BETWEEN CHERRY & DEL RIO REPAINTED 37 LEGENDS 11/18/09 JEFFERSON - REPAINTED 6 LEGENDS WALLABY OFF OF WOLF VALLEY REPAINTED 22 LEGENDS 11/24/09 RANCHO VISTA (IN FRONT OF HIGH SCHOOL) REPAINTED 80 LEGENDS MARGARITA AT AVENIDA BARCA REPAINTED 3 LEGENDS MARGARITA AT PASEO BRILLANTE REPAINTED 6 LEGENDS 11/30/09 WOLF CREEK AT FIRE STATION #92 NEW INSTALL 2 LEGENDS WOLF VALLEY AT REDHAWK PARKWAY REPAINTED 7 LEGENDS WOLF VALLEY BETWEEN REDHAWK & SAN JOSE REPAINTED 6 LEGENDS TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 342 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 0 RAMAINTAIMW RKC0MPLTMSTRlPlNG CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009 DATE LOCATION . WORK COMPLETED 11/04/09 310356 CORTE ANACAPA TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES HARVESTON LOOP TRIMMED 19 R.O.W. TREES 27049 ROCK BLUFF TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES 39322 SPRINGTIME DRIVE TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES PREECE AT BUCKEYE TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 11/05/09 27470 JEFFERSON TRIMMED 1 R.O.W. TREES MESSINA STREET TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 1/17/09 AREA #2 TRIMMED 7 R.O.W. TREES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 34 R:WI NTAIMWRKC0WLTD\TREES CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2009 DATE LOCATION ,: ORK "COMALETED 10/05/09 OVERLAND TRAIL AT BANANAL REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT SUNBEAM REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT JOHNSTON DRIVE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 BUTTERFIELD BRIDGE AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 116 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/O5/09 VIA REINA AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 VIA EL GRECO AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 CALLE RIO VISTA AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 40 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 MORAGA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 132 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 115 FWY AT TEMECULA PARKWAY REMOVED 260 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 WINCHESTER BRIDGE AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 228 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 CORTE FLORECITA AT MEADOWS REMOVED 65 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 SPYGLASS AT MEADOWS PARKWAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/05/09 WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/06/09 CAMPANULA BEHIND HOME DEPOT) REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/06/09 VIA JASSO AT MEADOWS REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/06/09 VIA GUERRO AT AMARITA WAY REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/06/09 MEADOWS AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 26 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/07/09 29645 VIA LAS COLINAS REMOVED 21 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/07/09 WALCOTT AT KLARER REMOVED 72 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/07/09 LONG VALLEY AT YUKON REMOVED 9 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/08/09 NICOLAS AT RANCHO TEMECULA REMOVED 1 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/08/09 REDHAWK AT PARIRLON REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/12/09 RAINBOW CANYON BRIDGE REMOVED 1,033 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/12/09 WALL AT LOMA LINDA REMOVED 18 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/12/09 CHANNEL AT LOMA LINDA REMOVED 236 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/12/09 TOWER PLAZA PARKING STRUCTURE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/12/09 CALLE MEDUSA AT CHAUNCEY WAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R:WAINTAINN W KCMPITDNGRAMTII YNEZ AT MARGARITA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI EMT*COMPLETED NO. GENERAL KEARNY AT MARGARITA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI CAMINO GUARDA AT CAMINO POLENCIA REMOVED 32 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/15/09 WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/15/09 WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/15/09 YNEZ AT OVERLAND REMOVED 50 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 1015/09 DE PORTOLA AT VIA ANGELES REMOVED 50 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 VIA RIO TEMECULA AT COUNTRY GLEN REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI - 10/19/09 AVENIDA DE MISSIONS AT POUQITO REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 OVERLAND TRAIL AT VAIL CREEK DRIVE REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 WOLF CREEK AT WOLF VALLEY REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 32555 VIA PERALES REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 VIA PERALES AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 CAMINO SAN DIMAS AT VIA LA COLORADA REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 PASEO GALIANTE AT CAMINO SAN DIMAS REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 46193 VIA LA COLORADA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 1 00'N/O WELTON REMOVED 30 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 BEHIND TEMECULA VALLEY SELF STORAGE REMOVED 280 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 RUSTIC GLEN AT KNOLLRIDGE DRIVE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 CREATIVE DRIVE AT STONE GATE DRIVE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 CALLE PINA COLADA AT VIA NORTE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 NO. GENERAL KEARNY AT CAMINO CAMPOS VERDE REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MORAGA REMOVED. 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 LEENA WAY AT VIA RAZO REMOVED 22 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/19/09 MARGARITA ROAD AT SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK REMOVED 270 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/20/09 WINCHESTER ROAD AT MURRIETA CREEK REMOVED 516 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/20/09 VIA RAZO AT LEENA WAY - REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/20/09 HARVESTON AT HARVESTON WAY REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/20/09 YNEZ ROAD AT WAVERLY LANE REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/20/09 CALLE BALMEZ AT VIA CALIARI REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/21/09 DEER HOLLOW AT PEACH TREE REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI R:WA1NTAIN\ W KCMPLTD\GRAFFITI\ DATE WORK"COlYIPLETEA 10/23/09 MIRA LOMA AT RANCHO VISTA REMOVED 80 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 PEPPERCORN AT CORTE ZARAGOZA REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 PEPPERCORN AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 VIA COLORADA AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 PEPPERCORN AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 41 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 CORTE ZARAGOZA AT DEER HOLLOW REMOVED 9 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 CORTE ZARAGOZA AT PASEO GALLANTE REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 SAN DIMAS AT PASEO GALLANTE REMOVED 10 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 SAN DIMAS AT VIA LA COLORADA REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 VIA TRANQUILA AT VIA TRANQUILA REMOVED 9 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 CALLESITO VALLARTA AT CORTE LERMA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 DEER HOLLOW AT VIA COLORADA REMOVED 7 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/09 LOMA LINDA AT PECHANGA PARKWAY REMOVED 6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/30/09 15 FWY AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 7.979 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/26/09 MAIN STREET BRIDGE OLD TOWN REMOVED 212 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/26/09 DEER HOLLOW AT PEPPERCORN REMOVED 16 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/26/09 CAMINO SAN DIMAS AT FRANCISCO PLACE REMOVED 19 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/26/09 VIA LAS COLINAS AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/26/09 YNEZ AT YNEZ COURT REMOVED 97 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/29/09 15 FWY AT TEMECULA CREEK REMOVED 11,000 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/29/09 PECHANGA AT MURFIELD CHANNEL REMOVED 871 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 24,030 TOTAL LOCATIONS 79 R:\MAINTAIN\WKCM?LTD\GRAFFITI\ SQUARE FOOTAGE January 10,187 February 4,003 March 11,314 April 10,945 May 8,028 June 8,932 July 5,340 August 5,661 September 5,339 October 24,030 November December CITY OF TEMECULA 2009 GRAFFITI REMOVAL TOTAL CALLS January 37 February 30 March 167 April 132 May 74 June 149 July 139 August 116 September 84 October 79 November Totals for the Year To Date: November 1, 2009 Sq. Foot 93,779 Calls 1,007 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC -s- SQ FT R WAINTENANCRGRAffl'ITGRAMTICHART 0 J¢ Item No. 21 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Andre O'Harra, Chief of Police DATE: January 26, 2010 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the months of November and December 2009. PATROL SERVICES November December Overall calls for police service 61382 6,111 "Priority One" calls for service 47 43 Average response time for "Priority One" calls 3.9 Minutes 3.9 Minutes VOLUNTEERS November December Volunteer administration hours 444 385 Special Events 211 214 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours 907 912 Reserve officer hours (patrol) 9 35 Training hours 216 0 Total Volunteer hours 1492 1214 CRIME PREVENTION/GRAFFITI November December Crime prevention workshops /Neighborhood watch meetings conducted 2 2 Residential/business security surveys conducted 0 3 Businesses visited 38 18 Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 2 3 Crime prevention articles 1 1 Total square footage of graffiti removed 6,415 12,237 Number of Graffiti Locations 100 128 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT November December Total customers served 316 323 Sets of fingerprints taken 41 44 Police reports filed 17 13 Citations signed off 114 119 Total receipts $4,158.00 $5,055.00 SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT TEAM (SET TEAM) November December On sight felony arrests 5 7 On sight misdemeanor arrests 3 1 Felony arrest warrants served 1 2 Misdemeanor arrest warrants served 11 9 Follow-up investigations 0 0 Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks 40 66 Massage Compliance Checks 10 10 Crime Free Housing Checks 17 19 TRAFFIC November December Citations issued for hazardous violations 676 346 D.U.I. checkpoints conducted 0 1 D.U.I. Arrest 36 25 Non -hazardous citations 409 280 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations 146 56 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations 90 45 Parking citations 121 250 Seatbelts 46 13 School Zones 67 22 Cell Phone Cites 197 117 Injury collisions 20 31 Presentations 0 0 INVESTIGATIONS November December Beginning Caseload 107 129 Total Cases Assigned 47 61 Total Cases Closed 25 80 Number of community seminars/presentations conducted 0 0 PROMENADE MALL TEAM November December Calls for service 452 438 Felony arrest/filings 22 25 Misdemeanor arrest/filings 32 59 Vehicle burglaries 2 3 Vehicle thefts 3 6 Total receipts $5,729.00 $5,000.00 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS November December Felony arrests 2 5 Misdemeanor arrests 1 10 Citations 18 20 Youth counseled 144 112 Presentations 2 9 YOUTH ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM November December School visits 77 17 Home visits 17 18 Presentations (Jail Tour) 1 2 Drug Tests 2 1 Truancy Sweeps 0 0 REQUESTS TO SPEAK REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date / ���' / L� I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Subject: I(�tSl1��l�i Address: City/State/Zip: ''G�(l� �j c i PrnPCA 1 TC If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: T The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Z After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For Against Subject: p / / re- f Name: /'^ �d� Phone: Address: ���'~ City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date /D I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Pir. 66VkrA�-NJ�S For Against Subject: _ M �Jes �2Lkp a ^ iy' Name: PPA j1%.. o— KO� (F S PhnnP Address: City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date I 142 &// 0 For P Name: I wish to speak on Agenda Item No Against ity/State/Zip:2LLJ 9002 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date 1 r4 G 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item No. For 1/ Against Subject: Name: � eU ( JCccIln3 Phone: Address: City/State/Zip: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. Thank You. Date - 2.� -ID I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. P For Against : Address: J City/State/Zip: T""er� L ft Rd sga If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: r The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. c Mayor, Council Members and City Staff: From: Paul Jacobs Jan, 26,2010 Temecula, CA 92592 Please read into record for Item 17 —1'm sick Against my better inclination, I find myself urging the council to approve the applicant's extension request. Unfortunately, I think you have to dance with the one who brung `ya. UHS obtained state approvals to build the Temecula hospital in December, but I believe the supporting documentation from the hospital stating they have diligently pursued building the Temecula hospital is unsubstantiated. I see the word "diligent" come up repeatedly in the supporting documents, but that word seems like a foreign language to this hospital company. If they were diligent, they would have corrected the repeated violations that have held back progress at their existing facilities, as well as the new hospital. In fact, it appears to me this hospital corporation is holding the community hostage by stating they have no intention of building facilities in Temecula until they get approval for their existing addition at Rancho Springs. A diligent company would not have waited until December 30 to file a request for a time extension of their application to build the Temecula hospital. In their proposed project timeline UHS shows no intention of completing the first phase of the Temecula hospital with 100 beds until 2015. Five years later, UHS plans to add 75 more beds, and then 75 more beds every 5 years until build -out in 2030. The city approved a conditional use permit in January of 2008, but UHS did not gain approval from OSHPD until December 17 of last year. Although Condition #9 of the CUP allows the city's approval to become null and void after 2 years if no construction begins, UHS owns the property and has gained entitlements and rejecting approval of this time extension would likely invite litigation against the city, in my non -legal opinion. I suggest the city vigorously invite reputable competitors to our community because we needed those 320 beds 5 years ago — not 20 years from today. Whatever it takes to bring more hospital services to the area, I request this council explore all options and act expediently. If it takes building and staffing our own city hospital, put it on the ballot. I would gladly pay an extra penny in sales tax to not be afraid to dial 911. People in this community came together to build a sports park and if citizens were asked to donate money toward bringing in a quality competitor, I'll bet many residents would do so in a heartbeat. Make that request, and I will put in the first $100. As things are now, the two local hospitals don't exist as far my wife and I are concerned. Something needs to be done now to provide for the health and safety of the community. We cannot rely on the diligence of the existing hospital corporation based on their past history and the future timeline the applicant has offered the city. Thank you for your consideration and anticipated corrective action on this matter.