Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
062816 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)694-6444. 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 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 28, 2016– 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. 6:00 PM - The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to the following matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to the following matter of pending litigation: Claim of Granite Construction Company for additional compensation for work on Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement), Project No. PW03-05. Next in Order: Ordinance: 16-06 Resolution: 16-36 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Min Ji Kim Invocation: To Be Announced Flag Salute: To Be Announced ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar 1 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Achievement to Evan Bonnand, Richard Austin LaFleur, Gino Piccino, and Zachary Skinner of Troop#301 for Attaining Eagle Scout Rank Presentation of Certificates of Achievement to Invictus Games Participants Sarah Rudder and Eric Rodriquez PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. 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, 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. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes and Joint Meeting Action Minutes of June 14, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the Action Minutes and Joint Meeting Action Minutes of June 14, 2016. 2 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Adopt Resolutions Regarding the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolutions regarding the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 3 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENT(S) AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS FOR ANY MEASURE(S) THAT MAY QUALIFY TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION 4.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF TIE VOTE AT ANY MUNICIPAL ELECTION 5 Approve Allocation for the County of Riverside, Information Technology Division for Emergency Radio Rental, Maintenance, and Repair for Temecula Police Motorcycle Fleet for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve an allocation of funds to the County of Riverside, Information Technology Division, for the rental, maintenance and repair of City Police motorcycle fleet emergency radios in the amount of $38,000 for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and an allocation of$38,000 for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 6 Approve the Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Materials and Supplies Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 FY15-16 FY16-17 Vendor Amount Amount Description of Purchases Hank's Hardware $80,000 $80,000 Miscellaneous hardware items Consolidated Electrical $40,000 $40,000 Electrical equipment and supplies Grainger $40,000 $40,000 Miscellaneous facilities equipment Maintex $40,000 $40,000 Janitorial supplies 4 7 Approve the Four-Year Agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. for Animal Control Services RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve the Agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc., in the amount of $120,000 annually, for animal control services within Temecula City limits, for a total four-year agreement amount of $480,000. 8 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP for Financial Audit Services for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP in the amount of $93,839 for financial audit services for Fiscal Years ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, for a total agreement amount of$228,479. 9 Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chad Wohlford dba: Wohlford Consulting for Additional Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study Analysis for Fiscal Year 2015-16 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chad Wohlford dba: Wohlford Consulting, in the amount of $15,863, for additional Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study analysis for a total agreement amount of$57,613. 10 Approve Annual Renewal of Insurance Policies — Liability, Property, Automobile Physical Damage & Contractor's Equipment, Difference In Conditions (Earthquake and Flood), Excess Workers' Compensation, Crime, and Cyber Risk RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the insurance policy renewal for Liability insurance with AIX Specialty Insurance Company, in the amount of $134,160, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 10.2 Approve the insurance policy renewal for Property insurance with American Home Assurance Company, in the amount of $89,803, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 10.3 Approve the insurance policy renewal for Auto Physical Damage & Contractor's Equipment insurance with Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover Insurance Companies), in the amount of $7,102, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 5 10.4 Approve the insurance policy renewal for Difference In Conditions (Earthquake and Flood) insurance with Empire Indemnity Insurance Company with participation from Ironshore Europe Limited, QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Ironshore Insurance Ltd, General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona, Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, in the amount of $191,787, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 10.5 Approve the insurance policy renewal for Excess Workers' Compensation insurance with New York Marine and General Insurance Company (ProSight Specialty Group), in the amount of $48,263, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 10.6 Approve the insurance policy for Crime insurance with Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover Insurance Companies), in the amount of $2,832, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 10.7 Approve the insurance policy for Cyber Risk insurance with National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, in the amount of $9,615, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017. 11 Approve an Agreement with Esgil Corporation for Plan Check Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council approve the Agreement with Esgil Corporation, in the amount of$200,000, for Plan Check Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 12 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with Blanca Y. Price for Landscape Plan Check and Inspection Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council approve a Consulting Services Agreement with Blanca Y. Price, in the amount of $150,000, to perform Landscape Plan Check and Inspection Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 13 Approve an Agreement with MDG Associates, Inc. for the Provision of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Administration Services RECOMMENDATION 13.1 That the City Council approve an agreement with MDG Associates Inc., in the amount of $80,600, plus 10% contingency, for a total agreement of $88,660, for the provision of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Administration Services. 6 14 Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chicago Title Company for Title and Escrow Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chicago Title Company, in the amount of $30,000, to provide annual Title and Escrow Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 15 Approve the Amendments to Annual Agreements for Professional On-Call Services Required by the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) Division, for Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Property Acquisition Services Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. — First Amendment $60,000 Paragon Partners Ltd. — First Amendment $60,000 Geotechnical and Material Testing Services Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. — First $100,000 Amendment Geocon West, Inc. — First Amendment $100,000 Leighton Consulting, Inc. — First Amendment $100,000 Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services David Evans and Associates, Inc. — First Amendment $100,000 Dokken Engineering — First Amendment $100,000 Michael Baker International, Inc. —Second Amendment $100,000 16 Approve an Increase to the Contingency of the Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement), PW03-05 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve an increase to the contingency of the Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement), PW03-05, in the amount of $46,702.59, from the project construction account; 16.2 Increase the City Manager change order approval authority by the same amount ($46,702.59). 7 17 Receive and File Temporary Street Closure for The Gathering — A Cultural Night Concert Scheduled for August 21, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following special event in Old Town: THE GATHERING —A CULTURAL NIGHT CONCERT ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** s TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 16-01 Resolution: CSD 16-04 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD 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 Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 18 Approve the Action Minutes and Joint Meeting Action Minutes of June 14, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 That the Board of Directors approve the Action Minutes and Joint Meeting Action Minutes of June 14, 2016. 19 Approve a Sponsorship Agreement with Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. (S.A.F.E.) to Provide Quality Services for Children, Youth, and Families RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the Board of Directors approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc., in the amount of$10,000 cash and approximately $1,200 of in-kind facility rental fees, so that S.A.F.E. can provide our community with quality services for children, youth, and families who have experienced or are at risk of abuse and violence. 9 20 Approve a Sponsorship Agreement with Temecula Sister City Association for Facilities Use and Sponsorship for Student Travel for Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 That the Board of Directors approve the Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Sister City Association totaling $3,500 in staff services, $500 for facilities use, and $2,400 in cash sponsorship for student travel for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 21 Approve the Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Materials and Supplies Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 FY15-16 FY16-17 Vendor Amount Amount Description of Purchases Allie's Party Rentals $35,000 $35,000 Equipment rental for various events Supplies and materials forTCSD Costco $50,000 $50,000 programs and events Supplies and materials forTCSD Smart&Final $35,000 $35,000 programs and events BSN Sports(formerlyTomark) 1 $43,000 1 $43,000 ISports and gym equipment CSD PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the Community Services District before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 22 Approve Temecula Community Services District Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE LEVEL B — RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, SERVICE LEVEL C — PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, SERVICE LEVEL D — RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION, AND SERVICE LEVEL R — EMERGENCY UNPAVED ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 10 CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, July 12, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 11 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: SARDA 16-01 Resolution: SARDA 16-03 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Agency Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. SARDA 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 Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 23 Approve the Action Minutes and Joint Meeting Action Minutes of June 14, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 That the Board of Directors approve the Action Minutes and Joint Meeting Action Minutes of June 14, 2016. SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS SARDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, July 12, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 12 TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY— No Meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY— No Meeting 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. 24 Approve Planning Application Number LR13-0001, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR13-0001, MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) SECTION 15262, FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES 25 Adopt Updated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizen Participation Plan RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT AN UPDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN SETTING FORTH THE CITY'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK PROGRAM (CDBG) FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN, ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING, ANNUAL ACTION PLANS, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS, AND SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS 13 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 26 Community Development Monthly Report 27 Police Department Monthly Report 28 Public Works Department Monthly Report BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, July 12, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information)will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda,will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center(41000 Main Street,Temecula, 8:00 AM—5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website—www.cityoftemecula.org—and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 14 PRESENTATIONS City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of: Evan Bonnand Of Troop #301 We congratulate Evan for his achievement on receiving the rank of Eagle Scout, which is the highest achievement earned in Scouting. We are proud of Evan's accomplishment and wish him continued success in his promising and bright future. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty-eighth day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of: Richard Austin LaFleur Of Troop #301 We congratulate Richard for his achievement on receiving the rank of Eagle Scout, which is the highest achievement earned in Scouting. We are proud of Richard's accomplishment and wish him continued success in his promising and bright future. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty-eighth day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar,Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of.• Gino Piccino Of Troop #301 We congratulate Gino for his achievement on receiving the rank of Eagle Scout, which is the highest achievement earned in Scouting. We are proud of Gino's accomplishment and wish him continued success in his promising and bright future. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty-eighth day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of Achievement The City Council of the City of Temecula commends the outstanding achievement of.• Zachary Spinner Of Troop # We congratulate Zachary for his achievement on receiving the rank of Eagle Scout, which is the highest achievement earned in Scouting. We are proud of Zachary's accomplishment and wish him continued success in his promising and bright future. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty-eighth day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of A ch ievemen t Presented on behalf of the City Council and the Citizens of the City of Temecula to: Sarah Rudder The Invictus Games were formed in London, England in 2014 by Prince Harry. The Invictus Games, an international sporting event, utilizes the power of sport to inspire recovery, support, and rehabilitation to generate a wider understanding and respect for wounded, injured, and sick active duty and veteran military service personnel. The 2016 Invictus Games were held in May, in Orlando, Florida where 500 athletes from 14 nations competed in a variety of adaptive sports. Team USA was comprised of 112 athletes from all branches of service. Sara Rudder, a United States Marine Veteran, was injured while aiding victims at the Pentagon on 9-11. Sara participated in the Invictus Games and won seven medals including four gold medals in Powerlifting, 1:00 Sprint Row, 100m Run, and Discus and three silver medals in 4:00 Row Shot Put, and 200m Run, as well as the Exceptional Performance Award. We are very proud of Sara's dedication and accomplishments and we wish her all the best in her future. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty- eighth day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of A ch ievemen t Presented on behalf of the City Council and the Citizens of the City of Temecula to: Eric Rodriguez The Invictus Games were formed in London, England in 2014 by Prince Harry. The Invictus Games, an international sporting event, utilizes the power of sport to inspire recovery, support, and rehabilitation to generate a wider understanding and respect for wounded, injured, and sick active duty and veteran military service personnel. The 2016 Invictus Games were held in May, in Orlando, Florida where 500 athletes from 14 nations competed in a variety of adaptive sports. Team USA was comprised of 112 athletes from all branches of service. Eric Rodriguez, a Unites States Marine Veteran, was injured while providing watch over the resupply route in Afghanistan. Eric participated in the Invictus Games and won three medals including two gold medals in Basketball and Rugby and one silver medal in Sitting Disc. We are very proud of Eric's dedication and accomplishments and we wish him all the best in his future. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty- eighth day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Item No . 1 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (Sr CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No . 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 14, 2016— 7:00 PM 6:00 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation. The City Council will meet in Closed Session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) with respect to the matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880. At 6:00 PM Mayor Naggar called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:08 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Erin Lee Invocation: Sylvester Scott of Temecula Baha'i Community Flag Salute: David Fahrion ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Achievement to Abby Reinke Elementary School 2016 Odyssey of the Mind Team Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Riverside County Principal of the Year Marc Horton of Great Oak High School PUBLIC COMMENTS • Rebecca Weersing addressed the City Council. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Action Minutes 061416 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of May 24, 2016 and May 26, 2016 Budget Workshop - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of May 24, 2016; 2.2 Approve the action minutes of the May 26, 2016 Budget Workshop. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-1) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken and Rahn with Council Member Naggar abstaining due to reimbursement, Check #176638 in the amount of $142, for City related computer software. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2016. Action Minutes 061416 2 5 Approve Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council receive and file the Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter March 31, 2016 6 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates for Research and Community Outreach - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates for research and community outreach. 7 Adopt Ordinance 16-05 to Adopt Development Code Amendment Establishing Performance Standards for Businesses Manufacturing Alcoholic Beverages with Retail Sales and a Tasting Room (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 16-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(B)(3) Action Minutes 061416 3 8 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc. for Temecula Police Motorcycle Repair and Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc., in the amount of $12,500, for Temecula Police motorcycle repair and maintenance, for a total agreement amount of $42,500 for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 9 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Temecula and Foundation for Senior Care for Transportation and Parking Lot Related Services at the Mary Phillips Senior Center - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Foundation for Senior Care for the provision of transportation services provided by the Foundation and utilizing the City facility, Mary Phillips Senior Center parking lot, as a connectivity destination for pick-up and drop-off of Foundation clients. 10 Approve the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Helixstorm for Technology Services to Include but not Limited to Virtualization, Network, and System Administration - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Helixstorm, in the amount of $100,000 for Technology-related services, for a total agreement amount of$200,000. 11 Approve the First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement with T&D Communications for Cabling Services - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement with T&D Communications, in the amount of $10,000 for cabling services, for a total agreement amount of$40,000. Action Minutes 061416 4 12 Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Agreement with Innovative Document Solutions for Fiscal Years 2015-16 through 2018-19 for Canon Copiers and Printers - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Services Agreement with Innovative Document Solutions (IDS) to extend the Term to June 30, 2019; to increase the authorized annual contract amount for Fiscal Years 2015-16 through 2018-19 to $110,000; thereby, amending the total Agreement amount to $761,600; and to amend the Payment Rates and Schedule (Exhibit B); 12.2 Approve an additional appropriation to the Minor Maintenance Services Agreement in the amount of$20,000 for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 13 Approve Purchase and Installation Agreement and Related Budget Transfer with Bibliotheca for the SmartServe 1000 Self-Service Checkout Station at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve Purchase and Installation Agreement with Bibliotheca in an amount not to exceed $30,000; 13.2 Approve a Budget Transfer of $4,652 from TCSD Operating Budget (190.180.999.5250) to the Information Technology — Library Operating Budget (320.620.999.5610), in accordance with Budget Policy II.C. 14 Approve Fiscal Year 2016-17 CR&R Schedule of Solid Waste and Recycling Rates Pursuant to Franchise Agreement with CR&R, Inc. - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 Action Minutes 061416 5 15 Approve an Agreement with NRG EV Services LLC for the Installation of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station at Sixth Street Parking Lot - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council approve the Charging Services Agreement between the City and NRG EV Services LLC ("EVgo") for the 6th Street Parking Lot and authorize the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the City. 16 Approve an Agreement with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc. for Weed Abatement Services for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc., in the amount of$40,000, for Weed Abatement Services. 17 Award a Construction Contract to Los Angeles Traffic Signal Transportation, Inc. for the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Signal Modification, PW15-03 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Award a Construction Contract to Los Angeles Traffic Signal Transportation, Inc., in the amount of $85,800, for the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Signal Modification, PW15-03; 17.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of$8,580, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 17.3 Make a finding that the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Traffic Signal Modification is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 18 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co. for the Annual Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets for Fiscal Year 2015-16, PW15-10 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. Action Minutes 061416 6 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co., in the amount of $672,901.24, for the Annual Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets, for Fiscal Year 2015-16, PW15-10; 18.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount, $67,290.12; 18.3 Make a finding that the Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 19 Approve an Agreement with Aztec Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Janitorial for Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with Aztec Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Janitorial, in the amount of $73,652.52, to provide Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters for Fiscal Year 2016-17; 19.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,365.25, which is approximately 10% of the annual amount. 20 Approve a Three-Year Agreement with Excel Landscape, Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve a Three-Year Agreement with Excel Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $2,358,869 annually, for a total three-year Agreement amount of $7,076,607, for Landscape Maintenance Services; 20.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed the annual contingency amount of$353,830.35, for a total three-year contingency amount of $1,061,491.05, which is approximately 15% of the Agreement amount. Action Minutes 061416 7 21 Approve an Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc., for Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc., in the amount of $500,000, to provide Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 22 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim for the Purchase of Five Trucks for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim, in the amount of $8,372.40, which represents sales tax on the five new trucks for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 23 Approve Amendments to Five Annual Agreements for Various On-Call Traffic Engineering-Related Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 That the City Council approve Amendments to Five Annual Agreements, in the amounts specified, for Various On-Call Traffic Engineering-Related Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17, as follows: Altec Industries, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Counts Unlimited, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Pacific Striping, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Willdan Engineering First Amendment $30,000 RECESS At 7:46 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:46 PM, the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting recessed and convened as the Joint City Council, Community Services District and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. At 8:48 PM, the joint meeting adjourned and City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. Action Minutes 061416 8 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: COUNCIL MEMBERS/DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) 29 Approve Fiscal Years 2017-21 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Adopt Fiscal Year 2016-17 CIP and Annual Operating Budgets for the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (SARDA) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council/Board of Directors: 29.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2021 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 29.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PRELIMINARY ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS Action Minutes 061416 9 29.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 16-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2017-2021, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17, ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 29.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 29.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 29.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 JOINT MEETING ADJOURNMENT RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 30 City Council Travel/Conference Report BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT Action Minutes 061416 10 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported there were no reportable actions in regards to the Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT At 8:49 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. ********** Adjourned in Memory of the Orlando Victims ********** Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 061416 11 Item No . 3 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Pam Espinoza, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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 $4,218,318.84. 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 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 06/02/2016 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 1,206,431.80 06/09/2016 TOTAL CHECK RUN 2,443,563.22 06/02/2016 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 549,386.82 06/09/2016 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 18,937.00 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 06/28/2016 COUNCIL MEETING: $4,218,318.84 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 2,746,305.30 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION&GOVERNMENT 3,212.49 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 12,243.27 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 4,072.95 150 AB 2766 FUND 1,704.90 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,401.73 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 137,340.19 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 116.97 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,049.36 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"L"LAKE PARK MAINT. 1,149.06 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 5,004.64 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 44,235.86 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 220.32 300 INSURANCE FUND 5,094.77 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 32,708.67 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 28,480.00 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 10,031.36 340 FACILITIES 30,832.72 375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 104.43 395 2011 FINANCING LEASE CIVIC CENTER&CRC 534,056.25 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 67.65 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 67.65 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 67.65 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 67.65 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 67.65 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 405.81 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 124.92 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 6,592.37 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 158.55 504 SERVICE LEVEL'C''ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 35.71 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 221.19 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 71.54 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 80.98 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 3,046.76 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 26.74 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 33.75 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 30.81 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 3,676.67 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 180.19 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 91.76 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 38.98 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 569.22 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 27.92 518 SERVICE LEVEL'C''ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 282.73 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 10,066.53 520 SERVICE LEVEL" 'ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 8,522.64 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 5,415.83 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 33.60 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 33.22 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 24 HARVESTON 354.13 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 76.35 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 73.79 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 27 AVONDALE 422.62 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 341.03 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 44.13 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 7,211.06 $3,649,995.02 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 346,221.44 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 2,473.15 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,686.33 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRI 115,367.31 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 245.34 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,121.44 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"L"LAKE PARK MAINT 249.16 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 991.13 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,184.64 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 26,852.50 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 11,325.10 340 FACILITIES 11,148.29 375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 867.78 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 90.77 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 90.77 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 90.77 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 90.77 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 90.77 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 544.60 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 85.36 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CRE 57.33 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLAND 67.84 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 12.24 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 137.60 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 6 WOODCREST COU 25.04 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 35.29 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 233.94 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.66 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 10.88 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 7.11 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 155.95 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELO 33.41 514 SERVICE LEVEL" 'ZONE 14 MORRISON HOME 19.33 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTAT 16.68 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 38.95 517 SERVICE LEVEL'C''ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 3.38 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 144.64 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 77.20 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 209.76 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 354.61 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 8.42 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 9.29 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 24 HARVESTON 199.59 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 25 SERENA HILI S 64.18 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITI 2.87 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 27 AVONDALE 9.29 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 294.31 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTR 3.87 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 41,270.74 568,323.82 TOTAL BY FUND: $4,218,318.84 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 2982 06/01/2016 014685 COMPASS BANK 2011 REFUNDING 01 &08 COP D/S PMT 534,056.25 534,056.25 2983 06/02/2016 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT 1,128.45 1,128.45 SUPPORT 2984 06/02/2016 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC. FSA REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENT 5,461.00 5,461.00 2985 06/02/2016 000194 1 C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 457 9,115.78 9,115.78 303355 PAYMENT 2986 06/02/2016 000444 INSTATAX(EDD) STATE TAXES PAYMENT 32,371.03 32,371.03 2987 06/02/2016 000283 1NSTATAX(IRS) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYMENT 123,583.12 123,583.12 2988 06/02/2016 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 12,000.30 12,000.30 SOLUTION 2989 06/02/2016 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA-PROJECT RETIREMENT 2,980.26 2,980.26 SOLUTION PAYMENT 2991 06/02/2016 000245 PERS-HEALTH INSUR PERS HEALTH INSURANCE PAYMENT 102,840.44 PREMIUM PERS HEALTH INSURANCE PAYMENT 0.00 102,840.44 177163 06/02/2016 018963 AJAYI,ADETOKUNBO REFUND:TMS FIELD#2:CREDIT FOR 50.50 50.50 LIGHTS 177164 06/02/2016 018961 ALL STAR WATER HEATERS REFUND:PERMIT&INSPECT 66.40 66.40 FEES316-1399 177165 06/02/2016 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY SIGNAL BATTERIES:PW TRAFFIC 573.43 573.43 CORPORATION 177166 06/02/2016 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING APA MBRSHIP RENEWALS 1,784.00 1,784.00 ASSOCIATION 4/1/16-3/31/17 177167 06/02/2016 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS WATER SAFETY INSTRUCTOR 140.00 140.00 COURSE:AQUATICS 177168 06/02/2016 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE MAR CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SRVCS 10,000.00 10,000.00 VALLEYS Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177169 06/02/2016 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO DRINKING WATER 28.35 SRVCS:INFORMATION TECH DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS:CIVIC CEN- 184.14 DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS:JRC 28.35 DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS:SENIOR CE 34.83 DRINKING WATER SYSTEM SVCS:PW 28.35 304.02 177170 06/02/2016 017149 B G P RECREATION,INC. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,333.04 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,388.46 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 4,082.40 8,803.90 177171 06/02/2016 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO ENTERTAINMENT:TVM 6/4 200.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 297.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 350.00 847.50 177172 06/02/2016 013482 BAS SECURITY 5/1-16 SECURITY SRVCS:HARV.LAKE 859.20 859.20 PARK 177173 06/02/2016 014718 BELLAMY,KRISTAANN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 147.00 147.00 177174 06/02/2016 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET 856.17 MAI NT MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 53.02 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 80.00 MISC FLEET&EQUIP SVCS:STREET MAI 454.28 1,443.47 177175 06/02/2016 008605 BONTERRA PSOMAS APR ENVIRO MITIGATION SVCS:FV 125.00 125.00 RIPARIAN M 177176 06/02/2016 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS MEMBERSHIP DUES:S.LANKENAU 215.00 215.00 177177 06/02/2016 000131 CARL WARREN&COMPANY CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES:HR 3,899.56 3,899.56 INC 177178 06/02/2016 018719 CM SCHOOL SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES:C.MUSEUM 148.92 148.92 177179 06/02/2016 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES,C/O WELLS FARGO PAYMENT BANK 177180 06/02/2016 016530 COMMUNITY MISSION OF FY15-16 INCLEMENT WEATHER 2,108.00 2,108.00 HOPE SHELTER PGRM 177181 06/02/2016 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL MISC ELECTRICALSUPPLIES:CRC 502.20 DIST. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:CIVIC CENTER 356.40 ELECTRICAL SUPPLI ES:VARIOUS PARK: 356.40 1,215.00 177182 06/02/2016 014663 CONTROL TECH WEST,INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIP:PW 8,678.88 8,678.88 TRAFFIFC Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177183 06/02/2016 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 MISC SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PGRM 93.65 MISC SUPPLI ES:CRC 897.50 SUPPLIES:SKATE PARKACTIVITIES 761.95 1,753.10 177184 06/02/2016 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC TRAFFIC COUNT DATA 450.00 450.00 COLLECTION:PW TRAFFIC 177185 06/02/2016 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING& OVEN/STOVE REPAIR:STA 92 640.00 HVAC INC PLUMBING SVCS:RRSP RESTROOM 155.00 795.00 177186 06/02/2016 013621 CRAMER,AMY LIND TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,250.00 2,250.00 177187 06/02/2016 018491 CRONBERG PHOTOGRAPHY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 420.00 420.00 177188 06/02/2016 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PORTABLE RESTROOMS:VAR 52.80 52.80 SRVCS PARKS/SCHOOL 177189 06/02/2016 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:CODE ENF 155.98 LUBRICANTS FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:BLDG&SAFE 311.95 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:TCSD 512.20 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:TVE2 59.92 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW TRAFFIC 296.14 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW 86.47 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PUBLIC WOR 260.28 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW STREET P 663.49 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PUBLIC WOR 457.76 2,804.19 177190 06/02/2016 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER APR WATER METER:39569 SERAPHINA 380.82 380.82 DIST RD 177191 06/02/2016 004068 ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA, TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 175.00 AILEEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 262.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 175.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 262.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 175.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 122.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 105.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 177.19 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 175.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 175.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 227.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 105.00 2,137.19 177192 06/02/2016 011202 EMH SPORTS USA,INC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 406.88 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 957.60 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 665.00 2,029.48 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177193 06/02/2016 017432 EYEMED VISION CARE VISION PLAN PAYMENT 880.37 880.37 177194 06/02/2016 004074 FRANCHISE MGMT SERVICES MISC SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PGRM 468.63 468.63 INC 177195 06/02/2016 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 350.00 350.00 177196 06/02/2016 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 45.00 45.00 177197 06/02/2016 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA,INC. MAY INTERNET SVCS:THEATER 129.99 129.99 177198 06/02/2016 013076 GAUDET,YVONNE M. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 470.40 470.40 177199 06/02/2016 017539 GUEDRY,DAVE REIMB:UNIFORM SHIRTS 90.67 90.67 177200 06/02/2016 018964 HERNANDEZ,VIRGINIA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 177201 06/02/2016 018602 HORIZON SOLAR POWER REFUND:BALANCE ONACCT:TRU5052 1,232.80 1,232.80 177202 06/02/2016 001407 INTER VALLEY POOLSUPPLY POOL CHEMICALS:VARSWIMMING 518.40 INC POOLS SANITIZING CHEMICALS:VAR POOLS 349.08 867.48 177203 06/02/2016 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 40.00 40.00 PAYMENT 177204 06/02/2016 017118 KRACH,BREE B. MEDALS/AWARDS:YOUTHADVISORY 375.52 COUNCIL AWARDS:VOLUNTEERS OF THE YEAR 118.26 493.78 177205 06/02/2016 018500 LABOR READY SOUTHWEST, TEMP HELP:PW STREET MAINT DIV 822.00 INC TEMP HELP:PW STREET MAINT DIV 822.00 1,644.00 177206 06/02/2016 009467 LANKENAU,STEVE REFUND:CASP-274 500.00 500.00 RECE RTI FI CATION:B&S 177207 06/02/2016 018962 LESICKO,ALAYNA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N 177208 06/02/2016 008716 MAGEE,BILL PERFORMANCE:TVM 6/4 600.00 600.00 177209 06/02/2016 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS MISC SIGN SUPPLIES:PW STREET 210.40 210.40 MAI NT DIV Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177210 06/02/2016 003444 MARTIN&CHAPMAN 2016 ELECTION HANDBOOK:CITY 94.40 94.40 COMPANY CLERK 177211 06/02/2016 017427 MATCHETT,VIVIAN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 218.40 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 291.20 509.60 177212 06/02/2016 013219 MATTHIES,FRANK H. PERF:WESTERN CULTURAL 900.00 900.00 HERITAGE:TVM 177213 06/02/2016 018965 MCMAHON,JANET REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF 150.00 150.00 CTR A/B 177214 06/02/2016 018675 M DG ASSOCIATES,INC. CDBG ADMINISTRATIVE 5,745.00 5,745.00 SRVCS:PLANNING 177215 06/02/2016 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. DESIGN SVCS:YNEZ RD 3,256.21 SIDEWALKS:PW ENGINEERING SVCS:PW CIP:OT SIDEW/ 12,836.30 16,092.51 177216 06/02/2016 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC MISC.BOOKS,AUDIO,DVDS.:LIBRARY 456.55 MISC.BOOKS,AUDIO,DVDS.:LIBRARY 86.38 542.93 177217 06/02/2016 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING WELDING SVCS:WINCHESTER CREEK 700.00 700.00 INC. PARK 177218 06/02/2016 016858 MILLER,JOEL PERFORMANCE SUMMER CONCERT 1,200.00 1,200.00 6/9 177219 06/02/2016 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY, MISC ELECTRICALSUPPLIES:OLD 176.26 176.26 INC TOWN 177220 06/02/2016 013965 MONOPRICE,INC. MISC SMALL TOOLS:IT HELP DESK& 344.02 344.02 AV 177221 06/02/2016 004040 MORAMARCO,ANTHONY J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 500.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 472.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 392.00 1,365.00 177222 06/02/2016 001986 MUZAK LLC JUN DISH NETWORK 62.01 PROGRAMING:41952 6TH ST JUN DISH NETWORK PROGRAMING:FOC 140.85 202.86 177223 06/02/2016 014391 NICHOLS,KELLIE D. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 361.20 361.20 177224 06/02/2016 011679 OAK GROVE INSTITUTE 15-16 COUNCIL COMM SVC FUND 1,000.00 1,000.00 FOUNDATION 177225 06/02/2016 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:LAND 178.92 DIV DEV/TRAFFIC/C MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW CIP/TRAFFI 10.92 189.84 Page 5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177226 06/02/2016 004473 OLD TOWN TEMECULA PERFORMANCE:W.CULTURAL 1,250.00 1,250.00 GUNFIGHTERS HERITAGE DAY 6/4 177227 06/02/2016 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE&SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW 2,315.95 STREET MAI NT CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PARKS MAIN 805.20 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PARKS MAIN 50.39 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW TRAFFIC 286.15 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW TRAFFIC 565.85 4,023.54 177228 06/02/2016 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE&SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAI NT SVCS:TCSD 1,097.23 1,097.23 177229 06/02/2016 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE&SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:BLDG& 311.47 SAFETY CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:BLDG&SAF 717.10 1,028.57 177230 06/02/2016 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE&SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PARK 416.54 RANGER CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:CODE ENF 147.89 564.43 177231 06/02/2016 016585 PACIFIC PLAY SYSTEMS,INC. PLAYGROUND EQUIP PARTS:MARG 153.00 153.00 PARK 177232 06/02/2016 014048 PERREAULT,MIKE P. PERFORMANCE SUMMER CONCERT 1,200.00 1,200.00 6/16 177233 06/02/2016 010338 POOL&ELECTRICAL WATER CHEMICALS:MARG SPLASH 179.31 179.31 PRODUCTS INC PAD 177234 06/02/2016 005820 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES PAYMENT 384.70 384.70 INC 177235 06/02/2016 017863 PRG ENTERPRISES,INC FAMILY FIRSTT-SHIRTS:CITY EVENTS 33.21 FAMILY FIRSTT-SHIRTS:CITY EVENTS 472.23 505.44 177236 06/02/2016 017431 PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE PAYMENT 8,211.73 8,211.73 CO 177237 06/02/2016 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE BANNER PROGRAM-ECON DEV 537.84 537.84 ADVERTISING 177238 06/02/2016 008964 PULSIFER,JAMES PERFORMANCE:W.CULTURAL 500.00 500.00 HERITAGE DAY 6/4 177239 06/02/2016 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER MAY VAR WATER METERS:FIRE STNS 294.26 DISTRICT MAY WATER METER:30875 RANCHO VIS' 930.91 MAY VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE 15,540.70 MAY VAR WATER METERS:PW VARIOUS 2,353.88 19,119.75 177240 06/02/2016 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY APR TRANSIT AGREEMENT PMT 1,704.90 1,704.90 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177241 06/02/2016 015214 ROBIN'S NEST DESSERTS REFRESHMENTS:W.CULTURAL 625.00 625.00 HERITAGE DAY 6/4 177242 06/02/2016 016256 ROSALES,DAVID PERFORMANCE SUMMER CONCERT 1,800.00 1,800.00 6/23 177243 06/02/2016 012251 ROTH,DONALD J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 189.00 189.00 177244 06/02/2016 002226 RUSSO,MARYANNE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 504.00 504.00 177245 06/02/2016 000277 S&S ARTS&CRAFTS INC SUPPLIES:SKATE PARKACTIVITIES 235.37 235.37 177246 06/02/2016 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL THEATRICAL LIGHTING:THEATER 352.53 LIGHTING THEATRICAL LIGHTING:THEATER 195.09 547.62 177247 06/02/2016 004274 SAFE&SECURE LOCKSMITH LOCKSMITH SRVCS:TCC 14.85 14.85 177248 06/02/2016 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE APR PUBLIC NTCADS:PLNG/CITY 1,576.77 1,576.77 CLRK/PW 177249 06/02/2016 011511 SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 17.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,008.00 1,025.50 177250 06/02/2016 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV- SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00 CENTRAL 177251 06/02/2016 013695 SHRED-IT US JV,LLC 5/17,DOC SHRED SRVCS:CRC 17.61 5/17,DOC SHRED SRVCS:LIBRARY 16.54 34.15 177252 06/02/2016 017594 SIMONE,DEAN PERFORMANCE SUMMER CONCERT 1,800.00 1,800.00 6/2 177253 06/02/2016 018784 SKYTECH MEDIA SOLUTIONS OUTDOOR PODIUM/ACCESSORIES: 3,212.49 3,212.49 INC INFO TECH 177254 06/02/2016 000645 SMART&FINAL INC MISC SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PGRM 290.09 290.09 Page-.7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177255 06/02/2016 000537 SO CALIF EDISON APR 2-28-331-4847:32805 PAUBA RD 93.85 LS3 APR 2-30-099-3847:29721 RYECREST 24.64 APR 2-30-296-9522:46679 PRIMROSE AVE 302.09 MAY 2-33-357-5785:44747 REDHAWK PKC 31.50 MAY 2-35-164-3242:44270 MEADOWS PKI 25.92 MAY 2-35-164-3515:32932 LEENA WAY 25.01 MAY 2-35-164-3663:42335 MEADOWS PKI 25.01 MAY 2-35-164-3770:43487 BUTTERFIELD 26.57 MAY 2-34-624-4452:32131 S LOOP RD LO 302.09 856.68 177256 06/02/2016 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY APR 095-167-7907-2:30650 PAUBA RD 178.09 APR 015-575-0195-2:32211 WOLF VLY RD 100.64 APR 055-475-6169-5:32380 DEERHOLLO� 181.46 APR 125-244-2108-3:30600 PAUBA RD 92.03 MAR 091-024-9300-5:30875 RANCHO VIS' 3,733.43 4,285.65 177257 06/02/2016 018751 SOLARCITY CORPORATION REFUND:PERMIT&INSPECT 565.92 FEES:B15-1474... REFUND:PERMIT FEES:B15-0509,2929... 452.16 1,018.08 177258 06/02/2016 017611 SPERLING,MARVIN PERFORMANCE SUMMER CONCERT 1,800.00 1,800.00 6/30 177262 06/02/2016 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE BASIC LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENT 7,736.19 7,736.19 COMPANY 177263 06/02/2016 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE VOLUNTARY SUPP LIFE INSURANCE 907.90 907.90 COMPANY PAYMENT 177264 06/02/2016 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSD 385.39 385.39 ADVANTAGE 177265 06/02/2016 008023 STATER BROTHERS MARKETS REFRESHMENTS:ART EVENT 6/3 579.87 579.87 177266 06/02/2016 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CARPET CLEANING SRVCS:CRC 100.00 CLEANING GEN CLEAN,CARPETAND TILE:YMCA 1,950.00 CARPET&UPHOLSTERY CLEAINING:Sl 780.00 2,830.00 177267 06/02/2016 016262 STEVE ADAMIAK GOLF TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 224.00 INSTRUCTION TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 245.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 420.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 385.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 210.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 336.00 1,820.00 177268 06/02/2016 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 UNION DUES PAYMENT 4,775.00 4,775.00 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177269 06/02/2016 009150 TEMECULA GLASS&MIRROR DONATION BOX:TVM 206.55 206.55 INC 177270 06/02/2016 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY MAR'16 BUS.IMPRV DISTRICT 127,937.32 127,937.32 CONVENTION& ASMNTS 177271 06/02/2016 000314 TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM SUPPLIES:W.CULTURAL HERITAGE 300.00 300.00 INC DAY 6/4 177272 06/02/2016 016311 TIERCE,NICHOLAS MAP DSGN:W.CULTURAL HERITAGE 350.00 350.00 DAY 6/4 177273 06/02/2016 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE JUN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:CIVIC 4,274.77 CENTER JUN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:PD MALL 1.60 4,276.37 177274 06/02/2016 017430 TRANSAMERICA LIFE TRANSAMERICA ACCIDENT 2,914.56 2,914.56 INSURANCE CO ADVANTAGE PMT 177275 06/02/2016 014866 TWM ROOFING,INC ROOF REHAB:YMCA 4,800.00 4,800.00 177276 06/02/2016 000325 UNITED WAY EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 5.00 5.00 PAYMENT 177277 06/02/2016 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 4/16-5/15 BROADBAND 1,929.08 1,929.08 SVCS:CITYWI DE 177278 06/02/2016 007987 WALMART SUPPLIES:SPORTS FACILITIES 172.42 STATION SUPPLIES:BCADMIN 83.86 256.28 177279 06/02/2016 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 5/1-15 TREE MAI NT SRVCS:WNCHSTR 6,468.00 CRK SLOP 3/1-15 TREE MAI NT SRVCS:VINTAGE HIL 700.00 3/1-15 TREE MAI NT SRVCS:VILLAGES SI 770.00 4/16-30 TREE MAINT SRVCS:C.VERDES: 9,936.00 3/1-15 TREE TIMMING&REMOVAL:VAR F 560.00 5/1-15 EMERG TREE MAINT SRVCS:VAR 658.00 4/16-30 ANNUAL ROW TRIMMING:CITYWI 12,748.00 4/16-30 TREE MAI NT SRVCS:CITY RIGHI 5,039.00 5/1-15 TREE MAINT SRVCS:CITY RIGHT- 14,102.00 5/1-15 TREE MAI NT SRVCS:VINTAGE HIL 759.00 3/1-15 TREE TRIM,PLNTG&REMVLS:CR 5,727.00 5/1-15 TREE TIMMING&REMOVAL:VAR F 253.00 4/16-30 TREE TIMMING&REMOVAL:VAR 462.00 4/16-30 EMERG TREE MAINT SRVCS:VAF 546.00 58,728.00 177280 06/02/2016 018832 WILSON,MARIETTA REFUND:RENTAL CANCELLATION FEE 50.00 50.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177281 06/02/2016 017053 WOHLFORD,CHAD TYLER Consulting srvcs:cost alloc&user fee 7,887.50 7,887.50 177282 06/02/2016 000348 ZIGLER,GAIL REIMB:ART EVENTS SUPPLIES 6/3 322.23 REIMB:MEMORIAL DAY EVENT 5/30 182.74 504.97 1001071 05/25/2016 018957 HERRERA,ANA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTON 1001072 05/25/2016 018958 RAMIREZ,AURORA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001073 05/25/2016 018644 SALAZAR,DEANNA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N 1001074 05/25/2016 018959 WARREN,FRANCISCA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001075 05/26/2016 018960 QUINONEZ,MARLYN REFUND:CREDITONACCT:TCSD 36.00 36.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,206,431.80 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 06/02/2016 3:45:17PM CITY OF TEMECULA 131 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,206,431.80 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 2992 06/09/2016 000444 INSTATAX(EDD) STATE TAXES PAYMENT 1,866.82 1,866.82 2993 06/15/2016 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE MAY'16TUMF PAYMENT 526,552.41 526,552.41 COUNCI L OF 2994 06/09/2016 000283 INSTATAX(IRS) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYMENT 7,891.61 7,891.61 177283 06/09/2016 004973 ABACHERLI,LINDI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 280.00 177284 06/09/2016 015922 ABBY REINKE PTA FY 15-16 COMM SVC FUNDING 400.00 400.00 177285 06/09/2016 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES,LLC HVAC PREV MAINTSRVCS:CIVIC 1,550.00 1,550.00 CENTER 177286 06/09/2016 012898 AC NIELSEN CORPORATION REPORTING PURCH:DEMOGRAPHIC 740.00 740.00 REPORTS 177287 06/09/2016 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL Police k-9 training and equipment 157.68 157.68 INC 177288 06/09/2016 016450 AIR EXCHANGE,INC. PLYMOVENT REPAIR:STA 73 444.32 444.32 177289 06/09/2016 017463 AMADEUS PRODUCTIONS THEATER PERFORMANCE:JUN 17, 1,500.00 1,500.00 2016 177290 06/09/2016 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA 655.70 (AFN) POLICE PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLIC 284.28 939.98 177291 06/09/2016 018385 AMERICHIP,INC PURCHASE OF VIDEOS-ECONOMIC 2,537.00 2,537.00 DEV 177292 06/09/2016 013950 AQUA CHILLOF SAN DIEGO MAY 16 WATER SRVCS:POLICE 28.35 28.35 STOREFRONT OFC 177293 06/09/2016 017816 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS DIAGNOSE/REPAIR SCANNER:CITY 490.00 490.00 LLC CLERK 177294 06/09/2016 006720 BURGHARD,SANDY REFUND:CREDIT ON ACCOUNT:TCSD 21.00 21.00 177295 06/09/2016 005292 BUTLER,GREG REI MB:ICSC 2016 5/22-5/25/2016 36.98 36.98 177296 06/09/2016 004248 CALIF DEPT OF APR DOJ ALCOHOL 595.00 595.00 JUSTICE-ACCTING ANALYSIS:TEMECULA POLICE Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177297 06/09/2016 018828 CASC ENGINEERING AND Construction engineering srvcs:pw cip 1,400.00 1,400.00 177298 06/09/2016 005585 CHING,MARIA REIMB:TYLER CONNECT CONF 1,073.38 1,073.38 5/1-5/04/2016 177299 06/09/2016 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC. MAY 16 FLEX PROCESSING FEES 153.00 153.00 177300 06/09/2016 009905 COMPRISE TECHNOLOGIES SMART KIOSK PAYMENT 28,480.00 28,480.00 INC SYSTEM:LIBRARY 177301 06/09/2016 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS SECURITY ALARM SYS REPAIR: 376.99 376.99 LIBRARY 177302 06/09/2016 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:CIVIC 59.40 59.40 DIST. CENTER 177303 06/09/2016 014521 COSTAR GROUP JUN 16 WEB SUBSCRIPTION:ECO DEV 415.00 415.00 INFORMATION,INC 177304 06/09/2016 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 CPR CLASS EQUIPMENT:MEDICS 714.06 MISC SUPPLIES:YOUTH INNOVATION SR 387.89 INTERN REFRESHMENTS 7/16/15 334.46 MISC SUPPLIES:YOUTH INNOVATION SF 42.77 1,479.18 177305 06/09/2016 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 Misc tools:library 985.40 Building supplies:JRC 458.20 SUPPLIES:FRIDAY SCOOTER NIGHT EVE 424.08 1,867.68 177306 06/09/2016 008533 DAMKO,CHRISTINE REI MB:ICSC 2016 5/22-5/25/2016 424.56 424.56 177307 06/09/2016 012614 DBX,INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIRS:PW 7,463.00 7,463.00 TRAFFIC 177308 06/09/2016 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:POLICE 70.79 70.79 LUBRICANTS DEPT 177309 06/09/2016 009594 DULCHICELLA PERF:TEM.ART&STREET PAINTING 558.00 558.00 177310 06/09/2016 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS recognition plaque:temecula police 82.08 82.08 INC 177311 06/09/2016 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY JUN 16 STATE LEGIS CONSULTING 3,500.00 3,500.00 LLC SVCS:CM 177312 06/09/2016 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING JUN 16 JANITORIAL SRVCS:POLICE 854.50 854.50 CONTRACTORS MALL OFFI Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177313 06/09/2016 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 5/6-5/17 EXP MAIL SVCS: 128.30 ECODEV/PW/CC 5/18-5/24 EXPRESS MAIL SVCS:CC/PW/T 74.96 203.26 177314 06/09/2016 011145 FOSTER,JILL CHRISTINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 4,272.10 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,156.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 960.40 7,388.50 177315 06/09/2016 014865 FREIZE UHLER,KIMBERLY economic development-promotional 744.90 items LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS-ECONOMIC 1 574.60 LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS-ECONOMIC 1 534.60 STATIONERY MEMO PADS:ECO DEV PGF 346.20 BUILDING AND SAFETY INSPECTOR UNI 195.06 2,395.36 177316 06/09/2016 016436 FRICK,TRACY REIMB:MPSC&CULTURAL HERITAGE 327.28 327.28 DAY AT T 177317 06/09/2016 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA,INC. MAY INTERNET SERVICES:SKATE 39.95 PARK MAY XXX-0709 GENERAL USAGE:EOC 132.69 MAY INTERNET SERVICES:HARVESTON 129.99 MAY INTERNET SERVICES:FIRE STN#9° 119.49 MAY INTERNET SERVICES:LIBRARY 11.01 MAY INTERNET SERVICES:LIBRARY 11.01 444.14 177318 06/09/2016 016184 FUN EXPRESS,LLC MISC SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PGRM 343.39 343.39 177319 06/09/2016 010452 GAYLORD BROS INC Misc.exhibit supplies:history museum. 190.83 RETURNED MAT'L:GAYLORD BUFF 4 PL, -95.95 94.88 177320 06/09/2016 018364 GONZALEZ,IRENE REFUND:OVERPMT FOR FACILITY 50.55 50.55 RENTAL 177321 06/09/2016 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL MAY 16 LEASE COPIERS:CITY 1,341.71 SVCS HALL/TVE2 MAY 16 LEASE FOR 6 COPIERS:LIBRAR` 788.42 MAY 16 LEASE COPIERS:CITY HALL/OFF 289.44 2,419.57 177322 06/09/2016 002109 HD SUPPLY CONSTR.SUPPLY MISC SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAI NT 144.66 LTD DIV MISC SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAINT DIV 47.62 192.28 177323 06/09/2016 013749 HELIXSTORM INC. CHARGING CARTAND 9,031.60 CHROMEBOOKS IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT:INFO TE 2,025.00 HP SUPPORT RENEWALS:INFO TECH 1,553.00 12,609.60 177324 06/09/2016 017334 HOUSE OF AUTOMATION INC. INSTALL EMERG KEY ACCESS:OT 2,450.00 2,450.00 GARAGE 177325 06/09/2016 001407 INTERVALLEY POOL SUPPLY SANITIZING CHEMICALS:VAR POOLS 469.96 INC SANITIZING CHEMICALS:VAR POOLS 452.95 922.91 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177326 06/09/2016 003296 INTL CODE COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP DUES:LAKENAU, 240.00 240.00 STEVE 177327 06/09/2016 018352 JAMES ELLIOTT PERF:HOUSE OF FLOYD 6/16/16 3,500.00 3,500.00 ENTERTAINMENT, 177328 06/09/2016 013249 JOHNSON,GORDON LEE PERF:POETRY AT THE TVM ON 200.00 200.00 04/14/16 177329 06/09/2016 000820 K R W&ASSOCIATES MAY 16 ENG PLAN CHECK SRVCS: 2,035.00 2,035.00 LAND DEV 177330 06/09/2016 008456 KITZEROW,CHERYL REI MB:ICSC 2016 5/22-5/25/2016 97.00 97.00 177331 06/09/2016 018981 LAMADRID,MARGARET REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N 177332 06/09/2016 004412 LEANDER,KERRY D. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 378.00 378.00 177333 06/09/2016 018434 LEW EDWARDS GROUP,THE MAY 16 CNSLTNG SRVCS:CITY 4,000.00 4,000.00 MANAGER'S OFFI 177334 06/09/2016 013982 M C I COMM SERVICE MAY XXX-0346 GENERAL USAGE 36.82 MAY XXX-0714 GEN USAGE:PD MALLAU 35.35 72.17 177335 06/09/2016 011956 MATTHEWS,AARON REIMB:TYLER CONNECT CONF 1,046.02 1,046.02 5/1-5/04/2016 177336 06/09/2016 018982 MCKINLEY,JEFFREY REFUND:PICNIC RENTAL:HARVESTON 70.00 70.00 PARK 177337 06/09/2016 015259 MERCURY DISPOSAL HOUSEHOLD BATTERY RECYCLING 276.64 276.64 SYSTEMS,INC. PROGRAM 177338 06/09/2016 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC MISC.BOOKS,AUDIO,DVDS.:LIBRARY 80.96 MISC.BOOKS,AUDIO,DVDS.:LIBRARY 76.63 157.59 177339 06/09/2016 012962 MILLER,MISTY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 451.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 308.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 63.00 822.50 177340 06/09/2016 012264 MIRANDA,JULIO C. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 332.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 313.60 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 126.00 772.10 177341 06/09/2016 004040 MORAMARCO,ANTHONY J. PERF:TEM.ART&STREET PAINTING 1,250.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 136.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 21.00 1,407.50 Page-.4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177342 06/09/2016 018966 MUSICOLOGY LLC PERF:TEM.ART&STREET PAINTING 1,000.00 1,000.00 177343 06/09/2016 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC JUNE 16 IT MONITORING SRVCS:TVE2 100.00 100.00 177344 06/09/2016 013557 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE ANNUAL RENTAL OF NIGHT VISION 600.00 600.00 CENTER GOGGLES 177345 06/09/2016 018678 OLSEN,JAMIE PERFORMANCE:ARTFESTIVAL6/10 250.00 250.00 177346 06/09/2016 017399 PEGUERO,LILLEANN REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 100.00 100.00 RENTAL:HARVESTON 177347 06/09/2016 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 632.63 632.63 177348 06/09/2016 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE step and repeat backdrop for TVE2 383.40 383.40 ADVERTISING 177349 06/09/2016 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL MAY UNIFORM/MATS/TWL 783.56 SUPPLY RENTALS:CITY FACS MAY UNIFORM SVCS/FLR MATS:PRKS M 527.58 1,311.14 177350 06/09/2016 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS REPRODUCTION 162.00 SRVCS:BUTTERFIELD RD EXT REPRODUCTION SRVCS:BUTTERFIELD 147.33 309.33 177351 06/09/2016 018980 RIDOUT PLASTICS CO,INC. FALLING FEATHER EXHIBIT:C. 652.66 652.66 MUSEUM 177352 06/09/2016 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR APR'16 PRKG CITATION 6,966.75 6,966.75 ASSESSMENTS 177353 06/09/2016 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK& NTC EXEMPTION FILING FEE:SOLAR 50.00 50.00 RECORDER PWR 177354 06/09/2016 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 3/03-30 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1,670,094.38 1,670,094.38 DEPT 177355 06/09/2016 018012 SAUNDERS,CATHY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 252.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 252.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 252.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 252.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 252.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 126.00 1,386.00 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177357 06/09/2016 000537 SO CALIF EDISON MAY 2-32-903-8293:41000 MAIN ST 12,453.86 MAY 2-00-397-5042:43200 BUS PARK DR; 2,817.10 MAY 2-00-397-5067:TCSD SVC LEV C 2,171.79 MAY 2-31-912-7494:28690 MERCEDES S7 1,726.69 MAY 2-29-224-0173:32364 OVERLAND TR 1,421.31 MAY 2-29-933-3831:43230 BUS PARK DR 1,393.58 MAY 2-31-536-3226:28690 MERCEDES S7 1,167.27 MAY 2-30-520-4414:32781 TEM PKWY LS: 1,049.82 MAY 2-29-295-3510:32211 WOLF VLY RD 1,023.12 MAY 2-02-351-4946:41845 6TH ST 991.46 MAY 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT FRONT ST 960.19 MAY 2-35-403-6337:41375 MCCABE CT 675.66 MAY 2-25-393-4681:41951 MORAGA RD 609.27 MAY 2-29-223-8607:42035 2ND ST PED 520.14 MAY 2-18-937-3152:28314 MERCEDES S7 499.04 MAY 2-19-171-8568:28300 MERCEDES S7 399.34 MAY 2-30-220-8749:45850 N WOLF CREEI 246.08 MAY 2-31-536-3655:41904 MAIN ST 221.90 MAY 2-31-536-3481:41902 MAIN ST 164.39 MAY 2-35-664-9053:29119 MARGARITA R[ 156.29 MAY 2-28-904-7706:32329 OVERLAND TR 141.41 MAY 2-35-707-0010:33451 S HWY-79 PED 52.09 MAY 2-14-204-1615:30027 FRONT ST RDI, 34.96 MAY 2-36-641-3912:27498 ENTERPRISE C 33.40 MAY 2-36-641-3839:27498 ENTERPRISE C 29.12 MAY 2-29-953-8082:31523 WOLF VLY RD 27.72 MAY 2-29-953-8249:46497 WOLF CREEK 1 26.94 MAY 2-34-333-3589:41702 MAIN ST 26.18 MAY 2-31-031-2616:27991 DIAZ RD PED 25.52 MAY 2-31-282-0665:27407 DIAZ RD PED 25.52 MAY 2-29-807-1226:28077 DIAZ RD PED 25.27 MAY 2-29-807-1093:28079 DIAZ RD PED 25.15 MAY 2-29-657-2332:45538 REDWOOD RD 25.15 MAY 2-29-953-8447:31738 WOLF VLY RD 25.01 MAY 2-29-657-2787:41638 WINCHESTER 24.76 MAY 2-31-419-2873:43000 HWY-395 24.64 MAY 2-21-981-4720:30153 TEM PKWY TPI 23.60 31,264.74 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177358 06/09/2016 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY MAY 091-085-1632-0:41951 MORAGA RD 1,209.51 MAY 129-535-4236-7:41000 MAIN ST 881.98 MAY 026-671-2909-8:42051 MAIN ST 152.34 MAY 101-525-1560-6:27415 ENTERPRISE 145.20 MAY 021-725-0775-4:41845 6TH ST 68.02 MAY 181-383-8881-6:28314 MERCEDES S 36.54 MAY 101-525-0950-0:28816 PUJOL ST 36.54 MAY 055-461-2483-4:40135 VILLAGE RD 31.06 MAY 117-188-6393-6:32131 S LOOP RD 24.53 MAY 028-025-1468-3:41375 MCCABE CT 21.71 MAY 133-040-7373-0:43210 BUS PARK DF 17.08 MAY 196-025-0344-3:42081 MAIN ST 15.75 MAY 098-255-9828-8:29119 MARGARITA F 14.30 MAY 129-582-9784-3:43230 BUS PARK DF 14.30 2,668.86 177359 06/09/2016 018984 SOARES,SHIRLEY REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 177360 06/09/2016 005786 SPRINT APR 20-MAY 19 BUS FUSION 110.00 110.00 M2M:POLICE 177361 06/09/2016 018844 STANTEC CONSULTING CONVERSION/AUTOCAD DWG 2,500.00 2,500.00 SERVICES FILES:BTRFLD PH3 177362 06/09/2016 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE JUN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:LIBRARY 599.19 599.19 177363 06/09/2016 018983 TRUEVINE PENTECOSTAL REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:PALA PARK 177364 06/09/2016 002185 U.S.POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE/PERMIT#5:CITY 6,294.29 6,294.29 NEWSLETTER 177365 06/09/2016 016546 UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISES PROPERTY USE AGRMNT:TVE2 SPACE 2,500.00 2,500.00 CORP 177366 06/09/2016 006248 WALKER,JESSICA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 431.20 431.20 177367 06/09/2016 013286 WEST SAFETY SERVICES,INC. 911 ENABLE-SETUP FEE FORADD'L 1,700.00 1,700.00 ENDPOIN 177368 06/09/2016 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE MAY'16 MSHCP PAYMENT 69,810.00 69,810.00 COUNTY 177369 06/09/2016 009512 WURMS JANITORIAL JUN JANITORIALSRVCS:POLICE OLD 295.84 295.84 SERVICES,INC TOWN Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check# Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 177370 06/09/2016 000348 ZIGLER,GAIL REIMB:ART OPENING 6/3 167.88 167.88 1001076 06/03/2016 018968 DOYLE,CARRIE REFUND:BIGFOOT'SALL-DAY ART 140.00 140.00 CAMP 1001077 06/03/2016 018969 DRESSLAR,CHRISTINA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N 1001078 06/03/2016 018970 ELDERKIN,DANIELLE REFUND:CREDIT ON ACCOUNT:TCSD 240.00 240.00 1001079 06/03/2016 015853 FILES,FRANCA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001080 06/03/2016 008444 GREAT OAK HIGH SCHOOL REFUND:SEC DEP:RM 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTO N 1001081 06/03/2016 018971 MIKAELE,BEVERLY REFUND:RETURNED LOST 14.98 14.98 MATERIALS:LIBRARY 1001082 06/03/2016 018972 PETRICH,TOM REFUND:PICNIC RENTAL:TEMEKU 27.00 27.00 HILLS PARK 1001083 06/03/2016 018973 THOM,VALERIE REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:PALA PARK 1001084 06/06/2016 018976 CHILTON,BRITTNIE REF UN D:PRESCHOOL GYMNASTICS 54.00 54.00 1705.208 1001085 06/06/2016 018977 NORRID,LISA REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0405.204 304.00 304.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 2,443,563.22 Page.8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 06/09/2016 9:32:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA 100 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 2,443,563.22 Page9 Item No . 4 Approvals City Attorney AIZVA� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions Regarding the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolutions regarding the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE 3. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 4. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENT(S) AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS FOR ANY MEASURE(S) THAT MAY QUALIFY TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION 5. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF TIE VOTE AT ANY MUNICIPAL ELECTION BACKGROUND: On January 27, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-01 establishing its general municipal election date as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in even-numbered years allowing for consolidation of its elections with the County of Riverside pursuant to Election Code Section 10400 et sem. As such, the City will hold its general municipal election on November 8, 2016 for two officeholder seats, each for a term of four years. The current terms for Council Members Naggar and McCracken are expiring. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10220, the nomination period for candidates will be July 18 through August 12, 2016. If an incumbent does not file for candidacy, the nomination period will be extended by five days pursuant to Election Code Section 10225. The consolidation process requires cities and counties to take certain procedural actions in preparation for the conduct of the election. Generally, consolidated cities throughout the State adopt five standardized resolutions that do the following: (1) call for and give notice of an election being held in the city [Election Code Section 12001], (2) request the County to consolidate the election and render related services [Election Code Section 10403], (3) adopt regulations for candidate statements [Election Code Section 13307], (4) set priorities for any measure(s) that may qualify for the ballot [Election Code Section 9280 et seq.], and (5) provide for a runoff election in the event of a tie vote [Election Code Section 15651]. Based on additional printing and translation cost considerations and compact election deadlines, rebuttal arguments are not included in the proposed resolutions. If there is a desire to allow rebuttal arguments, reference to Election Code Section 9285 may be added. Given the above, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolutions regarding the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election. FISCAL IMPACT: The anticipated cost of the November 2016 General Municipal Election for officeholders is approximately $127,000 - $137,000 and is budgeted in the 2016-17 fiscal year. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law Cities 2. Resolution Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside to Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 with the Statewide General Election to be Held on the Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code 3. Resolution Adopting Regulations for Candidates for Elective Office Pertaining to Candidates Statements Submitted to the Voters at an Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 4. Resolution Setting Priorities for Filing Written Argument(s) and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis for any Measure(s) that may Qualify to be Placed on the Ballot for the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election 5. Resolution Providing for the Conduct of a Special Runoff Election for Elective Offices in the Event of Tie Vote at any Municipal Election RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 8, 2016, for the election of Municipal Officers. Section 2. Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Temecula, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing two (2) Members of the City Council for the full term of four years. Section 3. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in the form and content required by law. Section 4. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to coordinate with the County of Riverside Registrar of Voters to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter, and all supplies, equipment, and items that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. Section 5. The polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10242, except as provided in Section 14401 of the State of California Elections Code. Section 6. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the General Municipal Election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding consolidated municipal elections. The consolidated election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Elections Code Section 10418. Section 7. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form, and manner as required by law. 1 Section 8. The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said election and all reasonable and actual election expenses shall be paid by the City upon presentation of a properly submitted bill. Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 2 Item No. 4 Administrative correction to the Resolution to Request Consolidation of General Municipal Election RESOLUTION NO. 16-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The City Council of the City of Temecula, California, has called a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, for the purpose of the election of two (2) members of the City Council. Section 2. It is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used for each of the two (2) affected Council positions. Section 3. Pursuant to Sections 10002 and 10403 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, for the purpose of the election of two (2) Members of the City Council of the City of Temecula currently held by Michael Naggar and Michael McCracken. Section 4. Except for those services routinely conducted by the City Clerk as the local elections official, delegation is hereby made to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters to conduct said election in accordance with all applicable laws and procedures. The Riverside County Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized, instructed, and directed to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and give such further or additional notice of said election, in time, form, and manner as required by law. Section 5. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election. Section 6. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the General Municipal Election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding consolidated municipal elections. The consolidated election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Elections Code Section 10418. Resos 16-38 1 Section 7. The City of Temecula recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County, by reason of this consolidation, and agrees to reimburse the County for such additional costs. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside. Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 16-38 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16-38 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Resos 16-38 3 RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California, has called a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, for the purpose of the election of two (2) members of the City Council. Section 2. It is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used for each of the two (2) affected Council positions. Section 3. Pursuant to Sections 10002 and 10403 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, for the purpose of the election of two (2) Members of the City Council of the City of Temecula currently held by Michael Naggar and Michael McCracken. Section 4. Except for those services routinely conducted by the City Clerk as the local elections official, delegation is hereby made to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters to conduct said election in accordance with all applicable laws and procedures. The Riverside County Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized, instructed, and directed to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and give such further or additional notice of said election, in time, form, and manner as required by law. Section 5. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election. Section 5. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the General Municipal Election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding consolidated municipal elections. The consolidated election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Elections Code Section 10418. 1 Section 6. The City of Temecula recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County, by reason of this consolidation, and agrees to reimburse the County for such additional costs. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters of the County of Riverside. Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for City Council to be voted for at an Election to be held in the City of Temecula on November 8, 2016, may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. Except as provided in Elections Code Section 13309, the statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. Section 2. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY. A. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, candidate statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of Riverside. The County is required to translate candidate's statements into Spanish. B. The County will print and mail sample ballots and candidate statements to all voters in English and Spanish. The County will make sample ballots and candidates statements in the required languages available at all polling places, on the County's website and in the election official's office. Section 3. PAYMENT. A. Translations: 1. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidates statement into any required foreign language as specified in (a) and/or (b) of Section 2 above pursuant to Federal and/or State law. 2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate's statement into any foreign language that is not required as specified in (a) and/or (b) of Section 2 above, pursuant to Federal and/or State law, but is requested as an option by the candidate. B. Printing: 1. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in English in the main voter pamphlet. 2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in a foreign language required in (A) of Section 2 above, in the main voter pamphlet. 3. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in a foreign language requested by the candidate per (B) of Section 2 above, in the main voter pamphlet. 4. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in a foreign language required in (A) of Section 2 above, in the facsimile voter pamphlet. C. The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate's statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance to the local agency his or her estimated pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voters' pamphlet. In the event the estimated payment is required, the estimate is just an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the City Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidate for additional actual expense or refund any excess paid depending on the final actual cost. In the event of underpayment, the City Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the City Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within 30 days of the election. Section 4. MISCELLANEOUS. All translations shall be provided by professionally-certified translators. Candidate statements shall be prepared and formatted in accordance with Elections Code Section 13307(b) and bold type, underlining, capitalized words, italics, and bullets shall be prohibited. Occupational designations shall be consistent with recommendations and standards set forth by the California Secretary of State. Section 5. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package. Section 6. COPY OF RESOLUTION. The City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative a copy of this resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued. Section 7. APPLICATION. This resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 8, 2016, and shall then be repealed. Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENT(S) AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS FOR ANY MEASURE(S) THAT MAY QUALIFY TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. For any measure(s) that may qualify to be placed on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election, the written argument(s) and impartial analysis will be prepared as set forth in these priorities in accordance with, and subject to, the applicable provisions of Elections Code Sections 9280 through 9287, inclusive. Section 2. The City Council authorizes all members of the City Council to file written argument(s) in favor of or against City measure(s) that may qualify to be placed on the ballot not exceeding 300 words, accompanied by printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California. The arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against a City measure(s) may be submitted to the City Clerk. The arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. The arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to be Filed by the Author(s) of Argument. If more than one argument is submitted for or against any city measure, priority for printing and distribution shall be given in accordance with Election Code Section 9287. Section 3. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure(s) to the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney are affected. a. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure(s) not exceeding 500 words showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure(s). If the measure(s) affects the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare the impartial analysis. b. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure(s) was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the City. 1 C. In the event the entire text of the measure(s) is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-point type, the following: "The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure . If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the election official's office at (951) 694-6421 and a copy will be mailed to you at no cost to you." Section 4. This resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 8, 2016, and shall then be repealed. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 3 RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT ANY MUNICIPAL ELECTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 8, 2016, for the election of Municipal Officers in the City. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 15651(b) of the Elections Code of the State of California, if any two or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes for an office to be voted for within the City, there shall be held within the City a special runoff election to resolve the tie vote. A special runoff election shall be called and held on a Tuesday not less than 40 nor more than 125 days after the administrative or judicial certification of the election which resulted in a tie vote. Section 3. This resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 8, 2016, and shall then be repealed. Section 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 2 Item No . 5 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (Sr CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeff Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve Allocation for the County of Riverside, Information Technology Division for Emergency Radio Rental, Maintenance, and Repair for Temecula Police Motorcycle Fleet for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Lt. Greg Negron, Temecula Police Department Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an allocation of funds to the County of Riverside, Information Technology Division, for the rental, maintenance and repair of City Police motorcycle fleet emergency radios in the amount of $38,000 for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and an allocation of$38,000 for Fiscal Year 2016-17. BACKGROUND: The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. Radio communications by Temecula Police must be integrated with the County for daily operations and emergency responses. For continuity, standardization and radio frequency transmittals all emergency radio equipment must be supplied and maintained by the County of Riverside. The City is responsible for the cost of all maintenance, repair, and rental of emergency radio equipment for the Temecula Police motorcycle fleet. There are currently twelve motorcycles in the Temecula Police traffic fleet that require radios and ongoing maintenance to ensure communications are maintained throughout assigned patrols. Based on current year-to-date expenditures and the increased need for maintenance, repair and technical solutions the estimated cost for radio equipment and services with the County of Riverside is expected to be $38,000 for Fiscal Year 2015-16. The current size of the Police motorcycle fleet is scheduled to remain unchanged, however, many of the Honda motorcycles are beginning to age requiring increased maintenance to all components of equipment. As a result, it is anticipated the same level of radio rental, maintenance, and repair will be required moving into the new fiscal year. To maintain patrol communications and the same standard of service and public safety to the community, Staff recommends City Council also approve the estimated 2016-17 allocation of $38,000 with the County of Riverside, Information Technology. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the current Fiscal Year 2015-16 Police Department operating budget and shall be programmed in the 2016-17 operating budget. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No . 6 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (SY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Materials and Supplies Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase of miscellaneous materials and supplies from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17: Off FVO�ndor Amount Amount Description of Purchases Hank's Hardware $80,000 $80,000 Miscellaneous hardware items Consolidated Electrical $40,000 $40,000 Electrical equipment and supplies Grainger $40,000 $40,000 Miscellaneous facilities equipment Maintex $40,000 $40,000 Janitorial supplies BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Resolution No. 15-28, any purchase of supplies and equipment in excess of $30,000 requires City Council action. Throughout each year, multiple City departments purchase supplies and equipment from the same vendors. While no single department purchases over $30,000, the cumulative purchases Citywide from the vendors noted above may exceed this threshold. Therefore, staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the cumulative purchase of miscellaneous materials and supplies that may exceed the $30,000 threshold. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are programmed in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 operating budgets for affected departments. ATTACHMENT: None Item No . 7 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CSS CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Four-Year Agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. for Animal Control Services PREPARED BY: Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. in the amount of $120,000 annually for animal control services within Temecula City limits, for a total four-year agreement amount of$480,000. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has contracted with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc., a non-profit organization, since 1995 for animal control services provided within Temecula City limits. In 2004 the Council approved Temecula's participation in a Joint Powers Authority referred to as the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (SCFA) with other member agencies for the construction of an animal shelter and subsequent shelter services, that now include the member cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Wildomar, and the County of Riverside. The SCFA contracts with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. for animal shelter operations where citizens can adopt and license pets. The agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. for animal control services provides to the City a complete program which includes, but is not limited to, Animal Control Officers who conduct field and other services, sheltering of lost or abandoned dogs and cats, impounding of stray animals, quarantine of rabid animals, removal of deceased animals from the public right- of-way, dog licensing, vaccination clinics, animal complaint, investigation and resolution to Temecula residents and emergency response to the City of Temecula Code Enforcement Department, Fire Department and law enforcement agencies as required. Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. has provided excellent services and animal care to the City of Temecula for the past twenty-one years. To align the City animal control services Agreement with the current term of the SCFA shelter contract, staff recommends Council approve the four- year agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds exist in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 operating budget for the $120,000 annual payment and will be programmed into the operating budget accordingly for Fiscal Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement with Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. FIN17-01 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS, INC. FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of June 28, 2016, between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc., a Non-Profit (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). 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, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2020, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Contractor shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Contractor shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. Contractor shall be paid a flat fee of Ten Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($10,000.00) monthly. This amount shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($120,000.00) annually for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($480,000.00) unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Contractor 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 . Contractor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Contractor at the time City's written authorization is given to Contractor for the performance of said services. C. Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of 1 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FI N 17-01.05.26.16 receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Contractor's fees, it shall give written notice to Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Contractor shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor 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. Contractor shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities 2 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.Fl N17-01.05.26.16 related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Contractor. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Contractor shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers 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 Contractor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Contractor owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply 3 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Se rvices.FI N 17-01.05.26.16 separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Contractor shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be 4 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FIN 17-01.05.26.16 signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Contractor shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior written authorization. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Contractor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to 5 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FlN 17-01.05.26.16 provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in 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. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Contractor: Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. Attn: Kris Anderson 33751 Mission Trail Wildomar, CA 92595 14. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Contractor. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this 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. 6 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Se rvices.FI N 17-01.05.26.16 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub-contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. 7 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FIN 17-01.05.26.16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS, INC. A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behaif of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Kristine Anderson, President ATTEST: By: By: Rand! Johl, City Clerk Willa Bagwell, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Animal Friends of the Valleys_, Inc_. Attn: Kristine Anderson 33751 Mission Trail Wlldomar, CA 92595 Phone: 951-674-0618 E-Mail: krisandersoniObyerizon.net Willa Bagwell E-Mail: willabag(a-aol.com PM Initials: 1 Date: L s R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FIN 17-01.05.26.16 EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed/Scope of Work Contractor shall operate and provide an animal control program for the City of Temecula consisting of, but not limited to, field services and licensing. Animal Friends of the Valleys will provide 1 '/z full time Animal Control Officers, a fully equipped vehicle, and shelter for the City of Temecula animals. The Animal Control Officers will be serving the City of Temecula 12 hours per day, 5 days per week, as well as, after hours, week-ends and emergency calls. Within this program, Contractor shall perform the following specific functions: a. Enforcement: Enforce all applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code (Animal Control) and the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (SCFA) Memorandum of Understanding as it applies to sheltering requirements, as it exists during the term of this Agreement, including but not limited to: issuing of warning notices or citations as necessary for violations of such Ordinances. In the event, the City Municipal Code is amended and such amendments would substantially alter the duties and responsibilities of Contractor under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to meet and in good faith re-negotiate those terms and conditions of this Agreement affected by such amendments. b. Sheltering: Animals are to be sheltered exclusively at the Southwest Animal Shelter in accordance with Southwest Communities Financing Authority(SCFA) standards. c. Impound: Impound all animals caught at large and collect all impound fees assessed on behalf of the City; accept stray animals brought in by private citizens; provided, however, that identified, vaccinated, spayed or neutered cats shall be released as required by the Temecula Municipal Code. d. Quarantine: Quarantine as prescribed by law all animals suspected to be rabid. e. Complaint Investigation & Resolution: Investigate and pursue action on complaints and/or reports of potential violations of Municipal Code relating to animals, including unnecessary noise, in accordance with such procedures adopted by the City; respond to requests from the City Code Enforcement Department, County Fire Department, and contract law enforcement provider for assistance with animal related situations. f. Dead Animals: Remove dead animals from the public right-of-way within City of Temecula limits and from other areas upon request. g. Potentially Dangerous/Vicious Animals: In accordance with the City of Temecula Municipal Code, identify potentially dangerous and/or vicious animals and initiate the administrative or legal process for their control. h. Trapping& Removal: As limited by subsection (b), "Sheltering", respond to requests for assistance in the trapping and removal of domestic or wild animals, including coyotes, skunks, and possums, from public or private property. Contractor will offer advice in setting a trapy in any enclosed space and will remove belongings, or will maintain on- premises surveillance unless in the Officer's or his or her Supervisor's opinion there is a direct, clear and present danger to human life or injury. Identified cats will be released as required by City of Temecula Municipal Code. Contractor will provide traps but will not be required to provide vector control. Contractor shall charge a fee for traps as set out in the City's Animal Control Fee Schedule as approved by Council action. i. Dog Licensing Contractor shall implement a comprehensive licensing program including conducting dog license inspections. Area-wide canvassing will be conducted as part of s R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FI N 17-01.05.26.16 the field service activity. Contractor shall administer the current licensing provision of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. 1. Dog licenses shall be issued by mail, at the Animal Shelter, at vaccination clinics and by Animal Control Officers in the field. Contractor shall send renewal notices by mail to owners of currently licensed dogs, and shall send an application for licensing when requested by owners. 2. Contractor shall, at Contractor's expense, provide the forms and tags for such licenses and shall affix a professionally prepared sign at the Animal Shelter stating applicable fees for licensing for the City of Temecula. 3. Contractor shall collect all license fees and penalties on behalf of the City of Temecula, issue receipts for all such fees collected and keep copies thereof. The remaining license revenue collected will be applied to the budget for City services under this Agreement. Revenue shortfalls, below the estimate, will be the responsibility of Animal Friends of the Valleys, Inc. 4. All Administrative citation revenue will be remitted to Animal Friends of the Valleys on a quarterly basis. 5. Contractor shall pursue collection and/or prosecution, if appropriate, to recover any fraudulent, delinquent, or worthless payment received as payment for dog licenses issued, including penalties. 6. Contractor shall cancel any dog license issued for which invalid payment was received, and give notice of such cancellation to the license. 7. Contractor shall maintain such records in such form as required by the City's Finance Director so as to provide for proper cash management and for review and audit of the monies collected. Contractor shall furnish the City a monthly report detailing the licensing activities. j. Animal Bites: Investigate reported animal bites. Contractor may initially receive animal bite reports by telephone, but also shall respond in person to all reported bites by dogs or other suspected rabid or wild animals. Contractor shall take appropriate steps consistent with the circumstances of each separate incident to locate and quarantine the suspected animal(s) and/or assist the complained and/or injured party or parties to trap the suspected animal(s). k. Disposition_ of Unclaimed Animals: After notice and hearing as required, provide euthanasia service in a humane manner in accordance with procedures approved by the City Manager for unlicensed animals held for five (5) days and licensed animals held ten (10) days or more, if these animals are not reclaimed by their owner and are deemed unsuitable by the Officer for adoption. I. Clinics: Make all necessary arrangements and conduct at least two (2) one-day clinics for at costs rabies vaccinations. At cost rabies vaccination shall be six dollars and no cents ($6.00). The clinic must be open to Temecula residents. m. Field Services: Assign two and one half (2 Y2) service Officers appointed as Animal Control Officer. Routine field services will be provided as necessary within the hours limitation of this Agreement. The number of hours per week include, but are not limited to, routine mobile patrols, investigative and rescue time, court appearances and impoundment of dangerous, wild, injured or loose animals. Contractor shall assign a sufficient number of field services employees to duty at all times to meet the needs of this Agreement. Contractor shall provide service of twelve (12) hours per day during such hours as approved by the City Manager. Telephone service for members of the public shall be not less than eight (8) hours per day on a schedule approved by the City Manager. Emergency response shall be available twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven days per week as described in subparagraph (n). Contractor shall advise fire and law enforcement authorities serving the City of Temecula of the telephone numbers to 10 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control S ervices.FI N 17-01.05.26.16 access its services and shall cooperate with such authorities in developing the procedures necessary to provide after hour services. n. After-Hours: Provide a field service person either on duty or on call after regular hours as necessary to respond to emergency calls. The City and Contractor agree that any incident reported to Contractor or City staff, through the fire or law enforcement provider involving a dangerous, wild or stray injured animal, constitutes an emergency and requires immediate action by Contractor. When the City Manager or his/her designee has reason to believe that an animal control emergency exists, the City Manager or his/her designee shall notify Contractor and request a prompt response. If Contractor fails to respond to such request within a reasonable time or fails to respond at all, the City shall request, in writing, that Contractor send to the City a written explanation giving the reason(s) for the delay in responding or the failure to respond. Contractors written explanation shall be submitted to the City Manager within two (2) working days from the date of the request for emergency service. This Agreement and the provisions herein shall not be construed to limit the interpretation of what constitutes an emergency and/or the need for a priority response. The following examples are illustrative of the need for an immediate response from the Contractor: 1. Request to remove a wild, dangerous or injured animal or animal(s) from an inhabited place or vehicle; 2. Reported animal bites involving loose animals; and, 3. Livestock, fowl or game birds being attacked or killed by dogs, other animals or humans. o. Public Relations: Provide service to the public on matters covered in this Agreement consistent with established policies and procedures that promote courteous and efficient service and good public relations. Other policies and procedures not withstanding, Contractor in processing any type of complaint or request for service will indicate to the caller when a response can be expected from Contractor and how Contractor will respond. In the event an in-person response is appropriate to the specific situation, Contractor shall make such response by the end of the following business day. This provision shall be subordinate to shorter time limits specified elsewhere in this Agreement. p. Complaints Regarding Service: Cooperate with the City of Temecula to resolve any and all complaints filed with Contractor and/or the City pertaining to services provided under this Agreement. The City shall submit to Contractor, in writing, all complaints filed with the City concerning services provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor shall report monthly, in writing, to the City the number of complaints received by Contractor directly or indirectly through the City pertaining to quality of service(s) under this Agreement. q. Legal: Coordinate with the City and City Attorney any inspection warrant, impounds, or potential dangerous/vicious animal hearings or court actions. r. Records: Maintain and keep timely, complete, and accurate records of the receipt and disposition of all animals delivered into its custody. Contractor will file a report with the law enforcement provider within twenty-four (24) hours if an impound animal is missing or suspected to have been stolen. Contractor shall indicate on the Police report the circumstances of the animal's disappearance and make available to the City Manager the designated report or file number. s. Communications Equipment: Contractor agrees to provide radio equipment and frequency as necessary for effective performance of its obligations hereunder and in order to provide law enforcement back-up for its field personnel. t. Other E ui ment: Contractor shall provide and pay for all vehicle(s) and equipment necessary for the performance of this Agreement, and shall be responsible for 11 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FI N17-01.05.26.16 maintenance of such vehicle(s) and equipment, including the installation and removal of the paging or radio equipment described in Paragraph (s) of this section. Contractor shall be responsible for all costs relating to theft, vandalism, or destruction of said equipment by fire, accident or intentional acts. u. Personnel & Su plp ies: Contractor shall provide all personnel, supplies and equipment necessary for the efficient and effective operation of the Animal Shelter and animal control services and programs provided for herein, including, but not limited to Animal Control Officers, clerical staff, license tags and forms, citation forms, notices, and all necessary stationery, envelopes, and postage. Animal Control Officers will complete the required training in accordance with Penal Code 832 or its equivalent, and such other training as may be required by law, before being issued a badge and given the authority to perform Animal Control duties. Humane Officers will complete the required training in accordance with Corporations Code 14502. v. Attendance At Meetings: Provide input and coordination on amendment of City animal control fees and ordinances and shall attend City Council and other City meetings as required or requested to do so. 1. Contractor's Executive Director and the City Manager and/or his designee shall meet not less than quarterly to discuss Agreement performance. w. Reporting: Contractor shall provide and maintain on file or within records all reporting regarding statistics and services related to services provided per this Agreement and provide any reports requested by the City as outlined below, but not limited to: 1. Contractor shall furnish the City monthly reports detailing shelter, field, licensing and identification activities, including a summary of the utilization of field service employees' hours as required and outlined in the Scope of Services and any legal notifications and requirements as outlined in Section (q)• 2. Contractor shall maintain and keep records of all expenditures and obligations incurred pursuant to this Agreement and all income and fees received according to generally recognized accounting principles. Such records shall be maintained by Contractor for a minimum of four (4) years following the termination of this Agreement unless a lesser period is approved, in writing, by the City Manager. The records and/or animal control operations of Contractor shall be open to inspection and audit by the City or its authorized representative as is deemed necessary by the City upon reasonable notice to Contractor. Contractor shall provide the City a copy of Contractors full Annual Financial Statement immediately upon completion thereof, but in no case later than six (6) months after the close of each fiscal year. X. Continuing Pro-grams: Contractor shall implement and maintain the following programs on a continual basis during the term of this Agreement: 1. Public School presentations 2. Spay/Neuter subsidy programs for low income City of Temecula citizens when funds are available. 3. Cable television, website and social media announcements, information, and educational messages. 4. Ordinance review and changes aimed at ending pet overpopulation. 5. Animal Rescue Plan for domestic animals during a disaster. 6. Animal Control Officer services. y. Policy & Procedure Consultation: Contractor shall consult with the City and on any policy/procedure that affects Temecula animals, which shall be approved by the City Manager prior to implementation. 12 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control S e ry i ce s.F I N 17-01.05.26.16 z. License Fees. Contractor shall charge License Fees for dogs within the City as follows: 1. Altered dogs $15.00 for 1 year. 2. Altered dogs $20.00 for 2 years. 3. Altered dogs$25.00 for 3 years. 4. Unaltered dogs$35.00 for 1 year. 5. Unaltered dogs $70.00 for 2 years. 6. Unaltered dogs$105.00 for 3 years Late Payment Penalty Fee: $20.00 per license Special rates for Senior citizens of Temecula: 1. All dogs $8.00 for 1 year. 2. All dogs $10.00 for 2 years. 3. All dogs $12.00 for 3 years. Late Payment Penalty Fee: Unaltered Dog: $20.00 per license Altered Dog: $15.00 per license 13 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FIN 17-01.05.26.16 EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule The City shall pay a flat rate to Contractor in the amount of$10,000 per month for animal control services as discussed and agreed upon per E-Mail from Contractor attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. The cost for animal control services shall not exceed $120,000 annually for a total not to exceed agreement amount of$480,000 for the total term of this Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement. 14 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FIN 17-01.05.26.16 Mary Vollmuth From: w1LLA6AGQ2-aol com Sent: Monday,May 16 2016 10:33 AM To: Mary Vollmuth Cc: knsandefson®veiizon net Subject: Re C,ty of Temecula Animal Control Semces Agreement Attachments: auto insurance policies pdf Hi Mary, I was at a conference lest week Yea AFV is still a non•proft organization we have Dean for 2a years) Kristine Anderson President of the Board and Willa Bagwell Executrve Dreror are both authorized signers to bind as agreemerts You have the address correct I have attached a copy of the auto Insurance pal icy Let me know d you need anything further Thanks sa much Willis A Bagwell Executive Director Animal Fronds of Me Valleys Inc 951674-104618 exL 221 �a+o,xl4gtn In a message dated 0511 D(2018 5 09 07 P M Pacific Daylight TimeNair Y.:.:-tt�,g�atp[;4mcSk#ls.4�-4- Hi,as you know the City and AFV agreement for animal control services expires June 30, 2016 The City would like to enter into a new agreement for an additional 4 years which would place the expiration date in line with the SCFA shatter agreement.Per my conversation with Willa on 4/4/16 there is no anticipation,at this time,of the monthly animal control service rate of$10,000 changing As a result.I will do a four year agreement at$10,000 per month for a total not to exceed amount of$490,000.To complete the agreement I will need the following information: • Co fim+abon Anonal Friends of the Valleys remains a Non•Proft organization • The names and bites of the 2 Non-Profit signers authorized to bind Animal Friends of the Vakeys Note If there a only•designated signer I will need a copy of Animals Fronds corporate minutes so indicating • Current Auto insurance oertficate • Ven kation of ase Agreement marling address Animal Friends of the Valleys Attn:Kristine Anderson 33751 Mission Trail i 15 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Se rvices.171 N 17-01.05.26.16 Wildomar CA 92595 My contact information Is listed below should you have any questions or concerns Thank you and have a great day! Mary Vollmuth Purchaamg Manager Cay of Temecula (951 i 69&3932 a 1000 Main St Temecula CA 92590 rn Presse nate that emr adconespondence r Fh the Cay or To ds along m1h artarnrnents may be StdWd to the Catdorma NhJX Records AH and themtom may be subtact to dsclosum untesa oMsnmo o.errpt 16 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control ServiceS.FIN17-01.05.26.16 At.•':I GPI .jE ACY7Rl7 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE TW CERTIFICATE IS IBaUEO Aa A MATTER OF 44I0AMAT>t7N ONLT ANO[CYFER$NC A414TB UPON TOIE Ct%TBCATE HDLIIER TN6 CERTIFICATE IIM TE DOE$NOT AFFATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AME4D,EA.TECD OR ALTjR TAI[C.9"KA09 ATF00000 8V THE POLICIES BELOW ANIS CERTIFICATE Of MIURAKE 61013 NOT COII$tl'IUTa A CONTRACT 8ETWEAN THE IBBUMO■SURER401 AUTHORIZED ff0"F51hNTA1FW OR 1RCOUCE1E AND THE CERTIFCATIE FIOLOFB strENtrArCT •v,*e•!IR!•rlsf.r N r ADDT'WAAL YrsVRBD.av nukne.t rmrN o•Rnia-Fee. P$YlRtIGATa7N 4 WayeG r.+07NP a M.I.rrru arm cadet—o/m.PaacT.c.NM PPkie.m"r.V14.an.r.don.rn•[e A Aat.ln.re sur IIA.• Ill A.w net<u right.b rM s u►p1 ,w ^'s' • Robert A Zentner 13V an I-{ur.wl TarwYl L .rN.a r� t094MA b -:• pr,951-290-SWI}K:1951.278-0664 ]177$ hil Ars 0700 lk>.4A,CA Ilya) ReewlA ltYr•.w 14L�IOF�-w coYP.AQ Y�[• I y ;4 .Great Amellun Ins Co.of NOW Y -4* •rNn An"keds of the van" �.[R.Alwcu�Gslaly Co1llpanl .tlw4k III 33771 ABsswn Tra25 � AVt*G .,I,,�. Compww Insurance Co, 12117 AAAH I WIIB4PIaf,CA 925!7 / �RCFLF�' Great Amarlcan lnwranu Co _ 16181/ j IV' en9r$uf%i5 C[Ri>AOAi MI!@rt II�Rv>mdli 1.3 Y'_CE.,.*,•10.•.IIS lI:IA;rljCr h'J,TWA;I. 4 sTIU BFtCW We-rE PpN rIEVED 1D^4",O:ATDD Y.Mf3 VOVE rCq FIE-AV.PE44D ND.UTE_ IFRM OR CQNL—N OF AI,'r CCNIA I`ON OT.EA DO IJWENT—AFS C'-C ANAJI TNS CE— AIE EMT BE ISSIEL CN ICT>ERTAH `hE 114! AWE AFFORDED BV THE R"ILICIES`JESCR19EL"E•NN T i YIECT ro All.-E TCA•AS EIIL._S]NS A!G.OND•'.NS'�SVT�S CIES I MRS SHCYIY YAv W`JF 9EFN 0.FO.CED BY PN.CUIMS T?arF ronetM EanteF w.�fn -- -�F k�.• 7I PACO"2770 a?raas% vfg7- fs D A r AEI CAP4215167 10'11WAHS orgzIM$ S,I u�Yua t+a 7{ [. _I• m•.r 1 T Of10. � A gnaw !rt''` ,.I }E� uM3OlS7r51 07117R015 -117.291$ ...! _ .t 100000 C 1NCV550e114 0901RMl09014016 1000, - I •I f— - 1.000. / �.tra�>u•4ltc..!•cF.+w4.wrrrn w:am lm tawr..I rw...»sr+wwrww w..n....o Crry dTanBcvl;Mrese4aw AA�O�eenn.q to R e SNrcVla RrfArslop t A.—. a 11Mr Ten$Ew k"'I M/e1WVSaoe" ®1$EFtFT. Ir OfR04T{,o1RCl$1� am Ve�Frpera ar'f nalP4b AOCalOn9t 10ser4B ttlRl Tespeets 1B / BI� 0"Aoq 1.004*1 w�IFwhsd per 06202&04717 aNu ✓ I LAMN TEME001 AAY os TK HOVE OEa o. P0.1CMe M INE DE�RM Be THIS l[Pe111Tg4 BATF MweF IrelCa Mil Y OEIIYEe® M C Ry of TFElec Wa I / - ACCOAP41[E MIN TI�PQ1Cf F�OV�Owa ARM Flnanee DeparBneM 41000 Main Street �V i Temecula.CA 92590 E,Fst70fa ACpRD CGEPDRA Tpl1 AvIgRta•• soi ACORD 2S 12014!011 Th.ACORO n.m..nd!ogo are r•g4l•red-it.of ACORD 17 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FI NI 7-01.05.26.16 -, 0253568 a GREAT AMERICA14 INS CO OF Nv Arle.rwr7lhru CO 20 28 (Ed 040171 �rNk Set F's Iv- 1'1 .tLffnHr.1.V Geenlxf(IN 4001+2n Policy: PAC 099-27-53 01 .x•r.-r w:. 503111115411 THIS ENOORStMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY ADDITIONAL INSURED - DESIGNATED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION Tnls endo•sement modlflee Ins —ce provided under the following COMMERCIAL GENERAL. LIAR LITY COVERAGE PART .'h so❑rn me of AddA—al nsu,ed Pefeonlsl or Organ—tldn.'s- iTy OF TEMECULA 41000 IAA 'J STREET EMFCULA CA 92590 Inlormalmn req,ree to comp ete Ines Schedule I nul shown aDDve will De snown nine LMlaralions A. SECTION II - WHO IS AN INSURED �s amended to ncl.de as an acrht xal msired the persons/ o• organlTatwnls)shown it the Schedule•HOT only vnth respect to IreolHy for'eodoy rmury''orooerm y daage' OI 'pefsoral and advertising IDIJry' caused n whole dl In part Dy yOUF acts Df DIMIMIC"of the a:ts or on,ssnpns of tnose acting on your Dehaa 1. In me perrormance of your ongoing operations or 2. In correction with your oremlses owned by or rented to you However 1. ire insurance afforded to such additional Insured only applies to the extent permitted by law sno 2. .f coverage provided to the Aodivonal Insured Is required Dy a contract of agreement, the insurance afforded to s,rch additional nsured wit not be breeder than trial ah ch you are reglarec by the contract pl agreement to provide for such additional nsured Copyright, ISO Properties, Inc , 2812 CO 2—o' r 114117 (Page 1 of 2) 18 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.Fl N17-01.05.26.16 r •u n z 0253500 GREAT AMERICAN !NS CO OF NY rrn." icww. CO 20 2a (Ea.a4rs3l 0 its Awl [»NYCf•11$lsrriv a.+n•w a CSRQ�:01 Policy: PAC 098-27-5C 0+ THIS ENDORSEMSHT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - DESIGNATED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION a W!In respect to the msufanco affurded to these Audltional Insured*,the following;s added to SECTION III- LIMITS OF INSURANCE If coverage provided to the Additional Insured s re0u!•ed by a contract or agreement,the most we wl I pay on benalf of the Adedlonal Insured is the amount of r4urdnce 7 •eduned Dy the contract or agreement or 2. ava Aabi Under the appllcaule L!mlt*of Insofance shown In the Declarations 'Nnlcnever Is less This ondcrsement shall not ncrease the apohcable Llmds of Insurance shown in the DeClaranons Copyr.gltt. 150 Properties. Inc . 2072 Coll, 20 20 04!43 IPage 2 of 21, 19 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control S ervices.FI N 17-01.05.26.16 0253588 GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO w' „i•�„� set CA 20 48 1 E d 101`13) I IIttIA �� �••<Orton.»t 4t+arlrfc:nt. ?” i t,rr•a.nu �...�:.y PolIcy! CAP 421 S1 82 00 DESIGNATED INSURED FOR COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE This adorsemertl modifies insurance provided under the following AUTO DEALERS COVERAGE FORM BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIFA COVERAGF FORM 1Mth respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Covwspe Form apply unless modified by the endorsement rhs endorsement idnbfus Persor4s)or Cvganit,atrortlsl who are 'Insureds'for Covered Autos Liability Coverage under Vie Who:e an Insured provision of the Coverage Form Thss endorsernwn does not Iter coverage provided in,me Coverage Form S G'+edyl a 1,ame of Personlsl or Orgeniaatlon(s) CITY OF TEMECULA information raW red to complete t/ua Schedule.if not shown above.wil.be Mown in the Dedarabona Each person or orgarrsabon shown in the Schedule is an'Insured for Covered Autos Whiiety,Coverage.but Orly to the aslant that person or orgw&sdat quaEf•es as an"Insured'under the Who Is An Insured provision contained in paragraph A.i of SECTION 11 -COVERED AUTOS UABILITV COVERAGE in tt-e 8uslness Auto end Motor Carrier Coverage Forme end paragraph 0.2. of SECTION I - COVERED AUTOS COVERAGES of Eta Auto Do".Coverage Form Ca yright, ISO Proeertles. Inc.. 2011 CA 20 48 10113 (Page Iof 1 ) 20 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Animal Friends of the Valleys/Agreement.Animal Control Services.FIN 17-01.05.26.16 Item No . 8 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP for Financial Audit Services for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 PREPARED BY: Rudy Graciano, Revenue Manager Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP in the amount of $93,839 for financial audit services for Fiscal Years ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, for a total agreement amount of $228,479. BACKGROUND: On June 11, 2013 the City Council awarded a professional services agreement with the firm Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accountants, to serve as the City's independent financial services auditor under a three year contract; with the option to renew for two additional years. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP have been a valuable resource to the City over the last three years by providing professional and reliable accounting expertise and audit services. The firm's management and staff respond timely to requests, are knowledgeable of current government audit requirements, and have met all City established deadlines. The firm is also familiar with the City's accounting system and procedures, ensuring all postings, functions, policies, and practices are audited and reviewed for compliance and internal controls. The audit fees for fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 have remained unchanged from the proposal submitted by Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP in 2013. All services to be performed, fee structure, hourly rates, and billing methods will also remain unchanged from the original agreement. The fees and hourly rates remain competitive for the services provided, and Staff recommends Council approve the two-year agreement extension with the understanding, as per best practice, a new request for proposal process will be conducted prior to the expiration of the amended contract term. FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2016 and 2017 Engagement Service 2016 2017 a. City Financial Statement Audit $40,005 $41,205 b. City State Controllers (SCO) Annual Report 1,751 1,804 c. Single Audit Report 2,719 2,801 d. GANN Limit 515 530 e.Temecula CSD SCO Report 1,236 1,273 Total All-Inclusive Price $46,226 $47,613 FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds exist in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Finance Department operating budget for the 2015/16 audit in the amount of $46,226 and funds will be programmed accordingly into the 2017/18 operating budget for the 2016/17 audit in the amount of $47,613. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP. FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO., LLP FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, a Partnership, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On June 11, 2013, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Financial Audit Services", in the amount of $134,640.00, plus contingency in the amount of$13,464. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2018, increase the payment in the amount of $93,839.00, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: "This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2018 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 4 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The FIRST Amendment amount shall not exceed Ninety-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollars and No Cents ($93,839.00), for additional financial auditing services for a total Agreement amount of Two Twenty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars and No Cents ($228,479.00). 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 R:/Finance/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Vavrinek Trine Day&Co/Amendment1.Fiancial Audit Services.FIN17- 03.06.28.16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO., LLP (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Roger Alfaro, Partner ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP Attn: Roger Alfaro, Partner 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Ste. 300 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: 951-367-3000 Fax: 951-367-3010 E-Mail: ralfaro(cD-vtdcpa.com PM Initials:. Date: 2 R:/Finance/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17Navrinek Trine Day&Co/Amendmentl.Fiancial Audit Services.FIN17- 03.06.28.16 AC40 d CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE °05,131016 05.+1312016 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND,EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSVRERIS),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND TIff CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: N the cert ftoafe holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED.the policy(les)must be endorsed- If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,suDHct to the NntR and condlhons of the Policy,Certain policies mey require an endorsement-A statement on this Certificate does not confer,rights to the ceitt kale h~in Neu of such endom s. rNODucER (847)385-6800 (847)385-6801 NAVE:. Int9WO USA InC. Integra USA Inc. "E 847 385-6800 •847 385458D1 111 West Campbell Street Ciht OfTert IBM'S devid.koentinOntegrogrou .corn 4th Floot f#MA"S)AFFOaDING-COVOUM NAcs Arlington Heights.IL 60D05 _ I'. wsvaEaA Federal Insurat�e�o01R8n 4xW iAEURFD (909)466-4410 (09)468-4431 ea e: VavYinek,Trine,Day&Co.,LLP Roaltoe 06µ le 10681 Foot1141 Blvd.,Suite, Jr IyNIRAN C I Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 A E : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBE3t: 4YI REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY 71WT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVEfa)TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWnHSTANDLNG ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY TRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT MTN RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY Be ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREINIe SLORCT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PND CLAIMS. _ 'i"or NEIIMNfr =4uY Lm= aENERAI Lv.uulY / ✓ EAC"000IR111bct $1 D A GesLN LVBUTY ClA1Al5•LAlOc �� r� �W r/YY maaweanl s 10 000 3602-9324 o&i312018 05I1312DI7 Ga1uALACGfM6A a 1$2 000 000 '7RE Triner etYlt: PNOOUCTS- - / 10=1C1 YLDC s ul IONKNM LIAauT' Jb Eccd.rtl ,$1,000.000 ANyO � � BOOLYINAJRY LfYr prl:anl S A IWO�Eo m 7359-3893 05H3I20t505H3J2017YIw..HYIwI�a,.n'S HUED At1NOS A1/10 MVAC¢ S S UIBRETLA LLIB O=a O5ft31ZOtB A'2017 EAta'ooCURrviCE x10,000,000 A reuEa 1 uR CLANS 7988-7380 AG"GATE $10,000,000 1C I M —7— ACOPENT Y.o,..eaa COA.eASAtLoR ANe SYPLDYERE'LINIITY AM'Plyfiil'DE.r'MTNEREIIE[Am1E Y ;nGEavcWaER FITIUCE OT NIA pl)naaur r MN) EL adEASE.FA E1/l Of�'wiW TN[�f''rtRht E.POKY IIMf DESCRIPTION Of OPEMY10"I LOCATIONS/VEHICLES(A4,L ACORD lot-,AAaesr R.rtrA.e°n.a,r,If s°I..pAL°1.14 .41 RE:Auditing Services and Operations of the Named Insured as provided by these specific policies of insurance only,as per written contract with the Named Insured It is agreed that the City of Temecula,the Temecula Community Services District,the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers,officials,employees and volunteers are named as an Additional Insured with Primary and Non-Contributing wording.Additional Insured with respects to Auto Liability. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City of Temecula 1000 Main Street —UL0 ANY OF THE ABOVL D1-MBEO POLICIES BL CANCELLED BEFORE emecula.CA 92590 THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN {I/I ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISrONS- &(1P��`+ \�.`•' AUMOPoIEDREPWffMATF SO 1 1955-2010 ACORO CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2010105) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 3 R:/Finance/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Vavrinek Trine Day&Co/Amendmentl.Fiancial Audit Services.FIN17- 03.06.28.16 Ak_— CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 5/13/2016YYI THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND,EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED By THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURERISI,AUTHORtZEO REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: N the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the poicY(les)must be andmad.If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED.subject to the terms and conditions of tho Policy,certain policies may require an endorsemerlL A statement on this certificate doss not confer rights to the certilcale holder In lieu of such andorsomont(s). PRODUCER 4AVEACI MaryStrohman Kessler Alair Insurance Services, Inc PNDYL (909)031-1500 AX..,.49091932-2133 License 4 OA 9138740D1111ms trohmnnPtessieralair.eom 12687 N. Mainstreet, Ste. 240 CMpy Of TemQeule uMeulENAC 0 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91739 wwRaERA:_EVorest Indemalt Ina Co 851 INSUM V MAY 1 7Natwiw a- _ Vavrinek, Trine, Day i CO., LLP 10681 Footh>.11 Blvd., 11300 Finance DQPL vi I ERE: Rancho Cu—en a CA 91730-32 - COVERAGES CERTIFICATE MB R - O S REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSIIR F I t VE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PER100 INDICATED NOTVaTHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT TERM OR CONDITWON OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT Wf H RESPECT TO YMICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN THE IN$}i�C BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO All THE TERMS EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LASTS SS11 r INVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAMS. NPLTR TYPE OF DZURANCE CY O UWTB UWKMAL LIABILITY rACN OCCURRENCE $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY t CLAIMS-MAZE❑OCCLN MED EXP Ong Nle twI S PERSONAL L AAI IIUUIY L 00aJtAL AOOREa4TE s A00 TF JWT APPLIES PER "COx'S-C MP'QPAnn S Y LOC S AVIDNDeaJi WMIJfT M Nt'YN[rl! MY A.IrO BJ.ILV hJJRY;Porpnof/ IT ALL OMEO A--1QBDLIEO BODILY M1J Y'IPtr toe" IT AVifJ6 HDNQrM/N V="DAMAGE 1 HIRED Al!-OS AX 1 UMBRELLA LAB OaUR RR EXCESS LNB GALS LLAEE AGGREGATE 41 A NcNRERSCOWWMMTION R AW LMPLOYPR'LN91LM 1.•aPOPIrETp2�PARTNEP.t7ECUTNE YIN NIA EL EACH ACCIDENT \ "Ir GEJWfiMBER L,u:WDEDT jtyyrsry MMII) 000]01]161 /13/4016 /13/4017 EL DISEASE.EA EMPLOYE!L O a A. IOtKfaa,AmM RAIW Serve T s 1,000,00 DEscRVTIDN of OPERATIDNa r LDGITIONB f VEMCIFJi UIRMW ACORO+r.AaaRWer.l wf.Rrr..srR.euN.t.v...pAc.N nRUrPeI Certificate holder only. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION l� SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFOR! } THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN CLty OP 'Temecula '\ ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 41000 Main St- Temecula, CA 92590 I AUTItDRLlmarleeseNTArNE Nary Strohman/YIARY "tT L V•-* ACORD 25(20101105) 01988-2010ACORD CORPORATION.All nghls reserved. INRO26�.r n•n5�ry TM aPl3R11 neuro aM Uvfn oro ronmrareH uranins nE 1CMn 4 R:/Finance/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2016-17/Vavrinek Trine Day&Co/Amendment1.Fiancial Audit SerVICeS.FIN17- 03.06.28.16 Item No . 9 Approvals City Attorney r'�� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chad Wohlford dba: Wohlford Consulting for Additional Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study Analysis for Fiscal Year 2015-16 PREPARED BY: Rudy Graciano, Revenue Manager Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chad Wohlford dba: Wohlford Consulting, in the amount of $15,863, for additional Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study analysis for a total agreement amount of $57,613. BACKGROUND: The current contracted consultant Chad Wohlford dba: Wohlford Consulting has been performing comprehensive studies to update the City of Temecula Cost Allocation Plan and User Fees. A Cost Allocation Plan study analyzes each function within the City's administrative departments to determine their cost and develop the appropriate allocation basis necessary to distribute those costs to those departments that receive services from administration. A User Fee study is conducted to accurately, fairly and reasonably determine the full cost for City departments to provide direct services to individuals and businesses within the community, such as plan check, inspection, permitting and other development-related services. It is necessary to modify and update the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study as required to ensure the City is in compliance with Proposition 218, as well as Government Code 66016. Additionally, an approved Cost Allocation Plan is required to allocate overhead costs to projects/programs which are funded by Federal and/or State grants. Wohlford Consulting is currently in the process of completing this work for some of the departments but the scope needs to be expanded to include a study of Police services. The project along with a comprehensive and updated Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study is scheduled to be completed by July 1, 2017 at which time Staff and the Consultant will provide a final presentation of results to the City Council, or its designated subcommittee. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds exist in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Finance Department operating budget for the $15,863 amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Second Amendment for Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study Consulting with Chad Wohlford dba: Wohlford Consulting. SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND CHAD WOHLFORD DBA: WOHLFORD CONSULTING COST ALLOCATION PLAN & USER FEE STUDY THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Chad Wohlford dba: Wohlford Consulting, a Sole Proprietor (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On August 12, 2014, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study", in the amount of $41,750, plus contingency in the amount of$4,175. b. On June 05, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into the First Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study", to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2016. C. The parties now desire to add scope of work, extend the term of the agreement to December 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of $15,863.00, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: "This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than December 30, 2017 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 4 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The Second Amendment amount shall not exceed Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty- Three Dollars and No Cents ($15,863.00), for additional Cost Allocation Plan studies, the Indirect Cost Rate Proposal for CalTrans, and optional User Fee Study for a total Agreement amount of Fifty- Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen Dollars and No Cents ($57,613.00). 4. Exhibit A and B to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 1 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation& User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 2 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16Mohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation& User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA CHAD WOHLFORD DBA: WOHLFORD CONSULTING (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Chad Wohlford, Owner ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Chad Wohlford DBA: Wohlford Consulting 372 Florin Road, #203 Sacramento, CA 95831 Phone: 916-205-7050 Fax: 916-393-6801 E-Mail: chad(aD-wohlfordconsulting.com PM Initials- Date: nitials Date: (- 3 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16Mohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT A Tasks To Be Performed/Scope of Work Added to the original Scope of Work are additional services for the Cost Allocation Plan Study and optional services for the User Fee Study that shall proceed only after pre-approval and direction by the City. Consultant has been notified, via E-Mail attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, the City chooses to move forward with the services outlined below under the heading "Cost Allocation Plan Study" and shall not proceed with the services outlined under "Optional User Fee Study" at this time. Should the City determine to include the optional services as outlined, Consultant shall proceed only after prior approval is received, in writing, from the City Manager or his authorized representative: Cost Allocation Plan Study: 1. Restart the Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) study due to staffing changes. The scope will entail but may not be limited to: new site visit and meetings with departments, restructuring the CAP to address City changes, and new data collection. 2. Add Indirect Cost Rate Proposal (ICRP) to the Cost Allocation Plan per generally accepted CalTrans requirements. Optional User Fee Study: 1. Perform an analysis of Temecula Police Department costs to include all Police fee activities. This shall include on-site interviews at the Southwest Police Station and City Hall and updates to the City User Fee Study. 4 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation& User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule The cost for the additional services shall be as outlined below and the Consultant's E-Mail proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. The City chooses to proceed with the CAP Restart and ICRP Add-on for the Cost Allocation Plan Study. The Police OF Add-on for the User Fee Study is an optional cost and Consultant shall only proceed with this service upon prior written approval by the City Manager or his authorized representative but in no event shall the additional services exceed $15,863 for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of$57,613. Cost Allocation Plan Study: 1. CAP Restart $7,013 2. ICRP Add-on $2,950 $9,963 Optional User Fee Study: 1. Police OF Add-on $5,900 Total Additional Costs: 15 863 5 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation& User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 Mary Vollmuth From: Chad Wohiford(Wohlford Consulting)<chad@wohlfordconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 08,2016 6:14 PM To: Mary Vollmuth Subject: RE-City of Temecula Amendment Mary- Thanks for letting me know the status. Wohlford Consulting is a sole proprietorship with no employees,so I am not required to maintain workers compensation insurance. Please let me know if you want any additional information. Thank You. Chad Chad Wohlford Owner and Principal Consultant Wohlford Consulting 372 Florin Road.*293 Sacramento,CA 95831 (916)205-7050-phone (916)393-6801-fax chad(Mwohlfordconsultina.com This message may contain privileged or confidential information If you received this message in error,please notify Wohlford Consulting by email and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. From:Mary Vollmuth fmailto:Mary.VollmuthLcitvoftemecula.ora] Sent:Wednesday,June 08,2016 5:57 PM To:'Chad Wohlford(Wohlford Consulting)' Subject:City of Temecula Amendment Hi Chad,just wanted to let you know I am now in the process of drafting the amendment to your agreement with the City for the Cost Allocation Plan restart and ICRP study add-on.The Police OF add- on will be included as an optional item and cost if the City determines to move forward with that portion of the additional study at some point. Also,could you please confirm via a response to this E-Mail that Wohlford Consulting does not have any employees and therefore,Workers Compensation insurance is not required at this time? Thank you and have a great evening! t 6 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 Mary Vollmuth From! Chad Wohlford(Wohlford Consulting)<chac@wohlfordconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday,May 12,2016 12:01 AM To Mary Vollmuth Cc: Jennifer Hennessy Subject: RE:City of Temecula:Additional Proposal for Cost Allocation/User Fees Study Mary- Thank you for following up with me. You are correct that Jennifer and I agreed to the addition of services,which will require a contract amenomerd. Tne acidlhonal services and their associated oosts are below Cost Allocatbn Plan Due to City staffing charges and significant delays we need to restart the cost alocahon plan. This will entail a new site visit and meetings with the departments,restructuring the CAP to address City Granges.and new data co lection. There is still project budget left from the original contract,so the additional cost is just for tasks that need to be repeated,based upon the original milestones. Cost $7,013 We are adding an ICRP to the CAP This is a product that Carrrans is requesting these days,so it will be helpful for the C,ty to have t The was not included in the original proposal,but it is based on the CAP results,sots a s,mple add-cr and does not require a new study itself. Cost:$2,950 Uset Fee Study The original User Fee Study proposal did rot Include an analysis of the Police Department costs. We initially tried to nclude some PD fees In another department's analysis,but the City realized that there are significant PD fee activities that warrant their own aria ysls. The on-site interviews for PD will coincide with the next CAP or OF visit.so the cost for the PD study is a simple add-ort to the fee study Cost:$5.900 Summary The additional costs to ce added to the study,Including expenses,are. CAP Restart $ 7,013 ICRP Add-on $ 2.950 Police OF Add-on $ 5.900 Total: S 15,863 We will need to amend the agreement to extend the contract period also. The project is scheduled to be done(including any final presentations,me)by July 1,2017 However,you may want to extend line term to the end of calendar year 2017 to cover any follow-up assistance the City may require Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank You eAad Chad Wohlford Owner and Principal Consu tent Wohlford Consulting t 7 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 372 Fwin Road,#293 Sacramento,CA 95831 (916)205-7050-phone (916)393-6801-fax chord@!T 2httordconsultina.cot This message may contain pnvdeged or confidential information. If you received this message in error,please notify Wohlford Consulting by&marl and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. From:Mary Vollmuth[p)ailto:Mary VollmutliOcityoftenteculo,ofg] Sent:Wednesday,May 11,2016 6:17 PM To:'Chad Wohlford(Wohl(ord Consulting)' Subject:City of Temecula:Additional Proposal for Cost Allocatlon/User Fees Study Hello Chad, It is my understanding from Jennifer Hennessy you will be providing additional services to the City of Temecula which means I will need to amend and extend the Agreement we did with you last year. Could you please forward me a proposal with total cost for the additional services you will be providing? Thank you and have a great evening' Mary Vollmuth Purchasing Manager City of Temecula (951)603-3932 !9.i1.1y.volinxnhOcitvofternecula ora 41000 Main SI.Temecula.CA 92590 J Reese note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula,abng nvtn ottachments,may be sub/ed to tw Ciihfom+a Puboc Records Act and therefore may be sublocf to disclosure unless othanoso oxompt 2 8 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 /I �er—�-� CHADW-1 OP ID:JH1 1 NOW-VY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATEIM8120116 �r 04/06!2016 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURERISI.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(Iesl must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to the farms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not center rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsemen a PRODUCER p Wr /igght 8 Kimbrough 'E V E onE Whitaker Davis Ins Svcs,DBA: p IMIE 816.751.76E2 ' 916-731-7890 2150 Douglas Blvd..Suite 210 . Roseville,CA 95661 APR 08 2r$ ___ aleWtq/j MFOIWINO rgY[RAGE NNCe "SUN"A:Santinsl Insurance Com nyLW 11000_ NSIRE- Wphlford Consulting Ra: Mr.Chad Wohlford,DBA: c. 372 Florin Road.#283 AP - Sacramento,CA 95831 R.12 201 �. NNNIAIRR{A{ EA F COVERAGE$ CERTIFICATE NUMISeFt REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS 10 CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT.TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAMS I.w TYPE OF INSURANCE PMC Y NUMBER D&= l& LJmn A CONMERCIAL GENERALLWI TY GACH OCCIMAENCE 1 1,000, CLaMS+JAnE U occuR X SBAAX8756 04115/2016 04J16f2017 / 1,000,000 X Business Owners MED EXP 1 I 1 10,000 PHIWMAL A AW NJI.WY 1 1,000,00( GFM1t AOGAEOATE User APP!IF$PER GENERA.AGOREGATE / 2,000, Pox1 lJ/ECeT 0 LOC PRODUCT9•COLPIOPA00 / 2 000.00411 OTHER I AUTOMOBILE LLIBILITY I / 1,000, A MYAUTO 87SBAAJ(8756 041MS12018 HSJ2017 BODILY IMIURY JEW palate 1 AALL ULOOWED ICNEDULID BODILY IMIURv inusieweim 1 O0 D X LIoW HIREDAUrOS X AUTOS _Rkevdwro1 f B�"LLA HAe OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE / /XC/es LW CLANIJVADE AGGREGATE DILD FIETtNTION I1 WORK/IIS COW4N{ATION AND/1014.0Y/I1e LIABILITY 1I�II ANYPRCPPoE-ORPAATNER,EA OLTNE Yn MIA EL EACH ACCIDENT 1 C/FICE"EMER EXCLUDED' (Na1WMwyb NNl EL DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE 1 In et Oetvte u,gor 0. b 1 RAT WW Y;ILaT 0ESCRIPTON OF OPERATORS I LOCATIONS'VRRICLES tACOM0101.AIdI1111—RF—1=mdP1.,.vY w MIACPFd II—1. H mQdn01 ,Ci ty of Temecula,The Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, rad the Temecula Community Services District are named Additional Insureds s required by contract per attached SS 00 08 04 05. CERTIFICA M LDER CANCELLATION TEMEC-1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE VALL BE DELIVERED IN \ Main Street City of Temecula CORDANCE VAIN THE POLICY PROVISIONS Temecula, 411 r Temecula,CA 82590 �t 11 1 AUT...OREPRErE- 01 - C 1988.2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 28(20141011 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD n/ 9 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 Policy Name VVohlford Consulting COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Policy Number. 57SBAAX8756 Form SS 00 08 04 05 Excerpt ADDITIONAL INSURED This is an excerpt from the Commercial General Liability Form SS 00 08 04 05 that gives automatic additional insured status to certain persons or organizations,and it does not modify or alter coverage under the captioned policy. SECTION C-WHO IS INSURED,Item B.,Additional Insureds When Required By Written Contract, Written Agreement or Permit The person(s)or organization(s)identified below are additional insureds when you have agreed,in a written contract,written agreement,or because of a permit issued by a stale or political subdivision,that such person or organization be added as an additional nsured on your policy,provided the injury or damage occurs subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement,or the issuance of the permit, A person or organization is an additional insured under this provision only for that period of time required by the contract,agreement or permit. However,no such person or organization is an additional Insured under this provision if such person or organization is included as an additional insured by endorsement issued by us and made a part of this Coverage Part,including all persons or organizations added as additional insureds under the specific additional insured coverage grants in Section F.–Optional Additional Insured Coverages. f.Any Other Party (1) Any other person or organization who is not an Insured under Paragraphs a.through e, above,but only with respect to liability for"bodily injury,'property damage"or'personal and advertising injury" caused,in whole or in pail,by your ads or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: (a) In the pedonmance of your ongoing operations: (b) In conneatlon with your premises owned by or rented to you;or (c) In connection with your work'and included within the'products-completed operations hazard, but only if (ti The written contract or written agreement requires you to provide such coverage to such additional insured,and (g) This Coverage Part provides coverage for"bodily injury"or"property damage'included within the"products-completed operations hazard. (2) With respect to the Insurance afforded to these additional insureds,this insurance does not apply to: 'Bodily Injury,'property damage'or"personal and advertising injury'arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render,any professional architectural,engineering or surveying services,including: (a) The preparing, approving, or failure to prepare or approve. maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports,surveys,field orders,change orders,designs or drawings and specifications;or (b) Supervisory,inspection,architectural or engineering activities. The limits of insurance that apply to additional Insureds are described in Section D. — Limits Of Insurance. How this insurance applies when other insurance is available to an additional insured is described in the Other Insurance Condition in Section E.—Liability And Medical Expenses General Conditions. No person or organization is an insured with respect to the conduct of any current or past partnership, joint venture or limited liability company that is not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations. Form SS 00 08 04 05 Excerpt 10 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 Policy Name Wohfford Consulting COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Policy Number 57SBAAX8756 Form SS 00 08 04 05 Excerpt PRIMARY INSURANCE This is an excerpt from the Commercial General Liability Form SS OC 08 04 05 from Section E. Liability and Medical Expenses General Conditions, Item 7. Other Insurance Sub-item b. Excess Insurance, and d does not modify or alter ccverage under the captioned policy b. Excess Insurance This insurance is excess over any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis 7) When You Add Others As An Additional Insured To This Insurance That is other insurance available to an additional insured However, the following provisions apply to other insurance available to any person or organization who is an additional insured under this Coverage Part (a) Primary Insurance When Required by Contract This insurance is primary if you have agreed in a written contract, written agreement or permit that this insurance be primary If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. (b) Primary and Non-Contributory To Other Insurance When Required by Contract If you have agreed in a written contract. written agreement or permit that this insurance is primary and non-contributory with the additional insured's own insurance this insurance is primary and we will not seek contribution from that other insurance Paragraphs(a)and (b)do not apply to other insurance to which the additional insured has been added as an additional insured c. Method of Sharing If all the otter insurance permits contribution by equal shares,we will follow this method also. Under this approach, each insurer contributes equal amounts unbl it has paid its applicable limit or insurance or none of the loss remains.whichever comes first. If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method,each insurers share is based on the ratio of its applicable limit of Insurance to the total aopl cable limits of insurar•ce of all insurers. Form SS 00 08 04 05(Excerpt) 11 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 --"Ill /y- /.-,7-O CHADW-1 OP ID:JH .4C'oRo `l CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 04 E(YMCOTYYYI 07I09J2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO R1014TS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW- THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURERtS),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER.AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADD(TIONAL INSURED,the pollcy(ies)must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED.subject to the terms and conditions of the polity,certain policies may re re an endorsement. A statement on this—tificato does not confer rights to the certrflcate holder In lieu of such endwsementis PRODUCSR ��, NjAGT Wright 6 Kimbrough D e wirAe __ _ _ Whitaker Davis Ins Svcs,DBA: r'`'I itis Ne E m 916.751-7662 EA7t •916 761.7690 2150 Douglas Blvd,Suite 210 �•Id I� 2 ennn'AEsa Roseville.CA 95881 RCI tAstNG MSURMIS)4F rORD—.COVE RAr4 P11 Nsuq[NA United States Liability Ins CID 3 NsuN® WohlIord Consulting NaunERs; Mr.Chad Wohlford 372 Florin Road.#293 Naul c: Sacramento,CA 95831 wouNut I NSUNN F COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS-o CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE IISTFD BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THF INSUVEO NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REOUINk DENT TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICAIE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHOWN MAY WAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. TYPE 01INalaIANC[ POUIcYYUMBER 1 YYYY YY uwm 00WEN01ALOETIEML LMBILITY EACHC CURRENCE { CtAJA5 MAGE 1-1�UR brs.UGE TO RENTED— { LLJJ \[Drvrl+r M+ s FCR5011A-x ADV UNARY { GENL AGGREGATE LINPAPPLIES PER GFINERAI AGGREGATE { _ POLICY O%Ff 1PLIE _J LOC PRODUCTS-COMRVPA00 { olmo { AUTOMONLE LIABLITY ,NCO WNIOUE I-' { :Fe iRcee'Tl ANY AVID ECCILY NIUR1IPIv.1-e { ALL OVMFD SCHEOLIED AUIDS OWNED _ AVTO5 ac.CILY NIURV IPe aa—I { NINCO AJTOS SCHF s LILURLUA Li" OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE { [xe9[suA0 CLAJMSMAm AC(yIEGTE s s woa mscowsNSATem AM gROYpS'LIABILITY a ATVTE ANY PROPRIETCRFARTNERIEAECUIIVE r--'1 EL EACH ACCIDENT 3 Orr SCRJTALAoLRC%CUVE u N/A IMAntlmory In NHl E L OMEABE-EA EMPLOYEE F IRT NOTPEIUTIONS .L OTTERS!- Y T A ROFESSIONALLIAB. APIOMIDJ 0711012015 07110/2016 EachClaim 1,000,00; EDUCTIBLE,:51,000"¢k(—.--� CLAIMS MADE RETRO 7110105 Aggregate 2,000,00: DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS.VENCLES(ACO/lb tAl.AtlAlilAnAl gAmrmA 9CAAOJA,mrY o•AIMMrtl x men ePAa IA ruyul.ul CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION TEMEC•1 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City of Temecula THE EXPISIAT ACCORDANCE Y/IN DATE THE POLICY THEREOF. PROVISIONS. MILL BE DELIVERED 'N '.41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 7/�V TNORE,D REOgESENTAa VE &1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION All rights reserved, ACORD 25 12014101) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 12 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 Mary Vollmuth From: Chad Wohlford(Wohlford Consulting)<chad@wohlfordconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday,lune 08,2016 6:14 PM To: Mary Vollmuth Subject: RE City of Temecula Amendment Mary- Thanks for letting me know the status Wohlford Consulting is a sole proprietorship with no employees.so I am not required to maintain workers compensation insurance, Please let me know f you want any additional information Thank You. C'Rad Chad Wohlford Owner and Principal Consuftant Wohlford Consulting 372 Florin Road,*293 Sacramento.CA 95831 (916)205-7050-phone (916)393-6801-fax chadawohtfordcon sulting.conn This message may contain privileged or confidontiat information If you received this message in error,pease notify Wohlford Consulting by email and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. 13 R:/Finance/Agreements/Finance Dept Agreements/Agreements 2015-16/Wohlford Consulting/Amendment 2.Cost Allocation&User Fee Study.FIN17-02.06.28.16 Item No . 10 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve Annual Renewal of Insurance Policies — Liability, Property, Automobile Physical Damage & Contractor's Equipment, Difference In Conditions (Earthquake and Flood), Excess Workers' Compensation, Crime, and Cyber Risk PREPARED BY: Roberto Cardenas, Interim Human Resources Department Head RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the insurance policy renewal for Liability insurance with AIX Specialty Insurance Company, in the amount of $134,160, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 2. Approve the insurance policy renewal for Property insurance with American Home Assurance Company, in the amount of $89,803, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 3. Approve the insurance policy renewal for Auto Physical Damage & Contractor's Equipment insurance with Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover Insurance Companies), in the amount of $7,102, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 4. Approve the insurance policy renewal for Difference In Conditions (Earthquake and Flood) insurance with Empire Indemnity Insurance Company with participation from Ironshore Europe Limited, QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Ironshore Insurance Ltd, General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona, Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, in the amount of $191,787, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 5. Approve the insurance policy renewal for Excess Workers' Compensation insurance with New York Marine and General Insurance Company (ProSight Specialty Group), in the amount of $48,263, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 6. Approve the insurance policy for Crime insurance with Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover Insurance Companies), in the amount of $2,832, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; 7. Approve the insurance policy for Cyber Risk insurance with National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, in the amount of $9,615, for the period of July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017. BACKGROUND: In preparation for the July 1, 2016 expiration of the City's insurance policies, staff requested that the City's insurance broker, Arthur J. Gallagher & Company (AJG) market the City's insurance program, including Liability, Property, Automobile Physical Damage & Contractor's Equipment, Difference In Conditions (Earthquake and Flood), Excess Workers' Compensation, Crime, and Cyber Risk. In response, AJG obtained proposals from various insurance carriers. After accounting for broker fees, the insurance premiums represent approximately $26,389 in premium reductions over the City's FY 2015/16 insurance premiums. The reduction in premiums is the byproduct of a reduction in rates. These insurance premiums are listed below by category and in order of responsiveness: Liability Insurance Carrier Premium AIX Specialty Insurance Company $134,160 Allied World Insurance Company $140,129 Markel, Brit, Ironshore, Travelers Declined to Quote The premium amount of$134,160 for Liability Insurance represents a $5,941 decrease over the previous policy. The preferred proposal submitted by AIX Specialty Insurance Company provides coverage of $10 million per occurrence with a self-insured retention of $150,000. To ensure AIX Specialty Insurance Company has sufficient financial capacity to provide the necessary policy limits to insure the City's risks, AJG utilized the services of A.M. Best to assess their financial strength and creditworthiness. A.M. Best assigned a Financial Strength Rating of "A" (Excellent) to AIX Specialty Insurance Company based on their ability to meet their ongoing insurance policy and contractual obligations (after a comprehensive evaluation of their balance sheet strength, operating performance, and business profile). In addition, A.M. Best assigned AIX Specialty Insurance Company a Financial Size Category of "XV" ($2 Billion or Greater) based on their policyholder's adjusted surplus. Property Insurance Carrier Premium American Home Assurance Company $89,803 Zurich American Insurance Company $90,354 Hartford Financial Services Group, AXIS Declined to Quote The premium amount of $89,803 represents a $734 increase over the previous policy. The preferred proposal submitted by American Home Assurance Company provides coverage with a $10,000 deductible. A.M. Best assigned American Home Assurance Company a Financial Strength Rating of "A+" (Superior) and a Financial Size Category of "XV" ($2 Billion or Greater) based on their policyholder's adjusted surplus. Auto Physical Damage & Contractor's Equipment Carrier Premium Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover Insurance Companies) $7,102 Travelers, Lexington Declined to Quote The City's low self-insured retention/deductible requirement did not fit many carriers' underwriting guidelines; therefore the City's broker solicited a limited number of carriers. The premium amount of $7,102 represents a $393 decrease over the previous policy. The preferred proposal submitted by Hanover Insurance Company provides coverage with a $5,000 deductible. A.M. Best assigned Hanover Insurance Company a Financial Strength Rating of "A" (Excellent) and a Financial Size Category of "XV" ($2 Billion or Greater) based on their policyholder's adjusted surplus. Difference In Conditions: Earthquake and Flood Carrier Premium Empire Indemnity Insurance Company with participation from Ironshore Europe Limited, QBE Specialty Insurance $191,787 Company, Ironshore Insurance Ltd, General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona, Underwriters at Lloyd's, London North Shore, Risk Insurance Brokers (ICW), Catalytic Declined to Quote In an effort to obtain the required Difference In Conditions (Earthquake and Flood) insurance limits for the City, the City's insurance broker structured a package that included participation from multiple carriers. The premium amount of $191,787 represents a $$8,858 decrease over the previous policy. The preferred proposal submitted by Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, et al. includes a 5% Deductible applied per unit, subject to a minimum earthquake deductible of$50,000, $100,000 for flood except zones A, V, X that are 2%, and a deductible for all other insured perils of $25,000. There is one exception that is the former YMCA building that has a 25% deductible. A.M. Best assigned Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, et al. a Financial Strength Rating of "A+" (Superior) and a Financial Size Category of "XV" ($2 Billion or Greater) based on their policyholder's adjusted surplus. Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance Carrier Premium New York Marine and General Insurance Company $48,263 (ProSight Specialty Group) Arch, ACE/Chubb, Safety National, Midwest Employers Declined to Quote Corporation As a cost saving measure, in 2014 the City incorporated a $500,000 Self-Insured Retention into the City's Workers' Compensation insurance program. Therefore, rather than the City's insurance carrier covering the costs of employee related work injuries from the first dollar of loss, the City self-insures for the first $500,000 of each occurrence, with the insurance policy covering costs in excess of $500,000. The premium amount of $48,263 represents a $8,380 decrease over the previous policy. A.M. Best assigned New York Marine and General Insurance Company a Financial Strength Rating of "A" (Excellent) and a Financial Size Category of "IX" ($250 Million to $500 Million) based on their policyholder's adjusted surplus. Crime Insurance Carrier Premium Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover Insurance Companies) $2'832 American International Group $3,583 Travelers Insurance Declined to Quote The City's low self-insured retention/deductible requirement did not fit many carriers' underwriting guidelines; therefore the City's broker solicited a limited number of carriers. The premium amount of $2,832 represents a $1,290 decrease over the previous policy. The preferred proposal submitted by Hanover Insurance Company provides coverage with a $10,000 deductible. In addition, the Crime insurance policy includes coverage for City Officials including, but not limited to, the City Manager, City Clerk, Finance Director, and City Treasurer. A.M. Best assigned Hanover Insurance Company a Financial Strength Rating of "A" (Excellent) and a Financial Size Category of "XV" ($2 Billion or Greater) based on their policyholder's adjusted surplus. Cyber Insurance Carrier Premium National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA $9,615 BCS Insurance Company $18,073 ACE/Chubb Insurance Declined to Quote To protect the City against Internet-based risks, and more generally from risks relating to information technology infrastructure and activities (such as data destruction, extortion, theft, and hacking) the City opted to purchase Cyber Insurance. The City's low self-insured retention/deductible requirement did not fit many carriers' underwriting guidelines; therefore the City's broker solicited a limited number of carriers. The premium amount of $9,615 represents a $2,261 decrease over the previous policy. The proposal submitted by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA provides coverage with a $15,000 deductible. A.M. Best assigned National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA a Financial Strength Rating of "A" (Excellent) and a Financial Size Category of "XV" ($2 Billion or Greater) based on their policyholder's adjusted surplus. FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is requested, as adequate funds are available within the current budget. ATTACHMENTS: Insurance Proposal Prepared for City of Temecula v • Temecula Insurance Proposal City 4 000 Main Street Prepared Temecula, 92590 Presented: J - 03, 2016 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Susan Blankenburg Senior Vice President Arthur J. Gallagher& Co. Insurance Brokers of CA., Inc. License Number-0726293 1255 Battery Street#450 San Francisco, CA 94111 Susan Blankenburg@AJG.com www.ajg.com ©2016 Arthur J. Gallagher&Co. City of Temecula Table of Contents OurTeam and Commitment.......................................................................................................................3 Service Team&Commitment................................................................................................................4 YourProgram..............................................................................................................................................5 NamedInsured----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -----6 MarketplaceReview.............__..........____.........__.........___............__...........___.........__..............7 ProgramDetails........................................................................................................................................10 Municipal Liability—AIX Specialty Insurance Company...............................................................10 Municipal Liability& Excess Liability-Allied World Insurance Company......................................11 Workers Comp-New York Marine And General Insurance Company.........................................16 Property-Property—American Home Assurance Company........................................................17 Property-Property—Zurich American Insurance Company ........................................................21 Difference in Conditions Primary$10M -Empire Indemnity Insurance Company ........................26 Difference in Conditions $25M xs$10M -Hudson Specialty Insurance Company, (More)..........30 Auto Physical Damage -Equipment Floater- Inland Marine-Hanover Insurance Company.......35 Crime-Hanover Insurance Company..........................................................................................40 Cyber Liability-BCS Insurance Company....................................................................................42 Cyber Liability—National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA................................45 PremiumSummary..............................................................................................................................48 PaymentPlans.....................................................................................................................................51 Coinsurance Illustration .......................................................................................................................52 Changes/Developments.....................................................................................................................53 ProposalDisclosures...............................................................................................................................54 ProposalDisclosures...........................................................................................................................55 Insurance Company Ratings and Admitted Status ..............................................................................57 Client Signature Requirements................................................................................................................59 Surplus Lines Notice-California----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------60 Client Authorization to Bind Coverage.................................................................................................62 Additional Insured Certificates Agreement...........................................................................................65 Appendix....................................................................................................................................................66 Cyber Liability eRiskHub Features.......................................................................................................67 ClaimsReporting .................................................................................................................................68 Bindable Quotations&Compensation Disclosure Schedule................................................................69 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 2 Our Team and Commitment City of Temecula Service Team Susan Blankenburg has primary service responsibility for your company. We operate using a team approach. Your Service Team consists of: NAME/TITLE PHONE/ALT. PHONE EMAIL ROLE Susan Blankenburg 415-536-8417 Susan Blankenburg@AJG.com Senior Vice President Senior Vice President — Loann Le 415-536-8419 Loan nLe@ajg.com Le a com Client Service Exec Area Vice President — @ Jg' Arthur J. Gallagher&Co. Insurance Brokers of CA., Inc. Main Office Phone Number: (415)391-1500 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 4 City of Temecula Your Program City of Temecula Named Insured LINE OF • City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula Oversight Board And The Successor Agency Oversight Board and The Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Oversight Board And The Successor Agency To The Temecula Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Agency For The City Of Temecula Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula All Lines of Coverage included in this proposal Redevelopment Agency Of The City Of Temecula Temecula Community Services District Temecula Community Services District Temecula Community Services District Temecula Housing Authority Temecula Housing Authority Temecula Housing Authority Temecula Public Financing Authority Temecula Public Financing Authority Temecula Public Financing Authority To The Redevelopment Agency Note: Any entity not named in this proposal may not be an insured entity. This may include partnerships and joint ventures. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 6 City of Temecula Program Details We approached the following carriers in an effort to provide the most comprehensive and cost effective insurance program. COMPANYINSURANCE OF • RESPONSE $134,160.00 Includes WC Municipal Liability/ TRIA. AIX Excess Liability Recommended Quote Non-WC TRIA= $586.00 2 year rate/40% loss ratio Municipal Liability Allied World Insurance Company $1,000,000/$3,000,000 (Incumbent) Agg.Will be increasing Quoted $106.192.00 minimum SIR to$1 Million 2017. Allied World Insurance Company Follow Form Excess Quoted $33,937.00 (Incumbent) $9,000,000 Total $140,128.00, $141,101.00 with Terrorism($973) Markel Municipal Liability Not interested in stand alone Cities Brit Municipal Liability Cannot compete with current rate Ironshore Municipal Liability Not entertaining CA risks Expressed an interest Travelers Municipal Liability to quote, but declined due to low price. New York Marine And General Insurance Company (Incumbent) Excess Workers Comp. Recommended Quote $48,263.00 Declined. Minimum Arch Excess Workers' Comp. SIR$1,000,000 for CA ACE/Chubb Excess Workers' Comp. Declined Minimum premium $200,000 Safety National Excess Workers' Comp. Declined. Minimum SIR$1,000,000 Cannot offer Statutory Midwest Employers Corporation Excess Workers' Comp. limits&minimum SIR is$750,000 Zurich American Insurance $88,053.00,+ $2,301 Company(Incumbent) Property Quoted Engineering Fee + $11.10Misc Fee =$90,354 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 7 City of Temecula Coverage COMPANYINSURANCE OF • RESPONSE Hartford Financial Services Property Declined—can't Group compete with price American Home Assurance $85,303.00+ Engineering Company Property Quoted fee $4,500=$89,803.00 2 year rate/40% loss ratio AXIS Property Declined—rate too low $124,800.00 +$490.48 Policy Fees Empire Indemnity Insurance Difference in Conditions +$3757.20 Surplus Lines Company Primary$10M Recommended Quote Tax +$200.00 Catastrophe Analysis =$129,247.68 Ironshore Europe Limited Premium QBE Specialty Insurance $60,000.00 Company Difference in Conditions +$600 Policy Fee Ironshore Insurance Ltd $25M xs $10M Recommended Quote +$1818.00/$121.20 General Security Indemnity Co of Surplus Lines Tax/Fee Arizona =$62,539.20 Underwriters at Lloyd's, London $191,786.88 Difference in Conditions Not interested in North Shore Primary$10M $25M xs $10M Primary and Difference in ConditionsDeclination—flood is Risk Insurance Brokers (ICW) Primary$10M $25M xs$10M an issue. Not interested in Difference in Conditions Primary. Indication Catalytic Primary$10M given. Can't match XS $25M xs $10M premium but inspection fee is$900. Hanover Insurance Company Auto Physical Damage Recommended Quote $6,912.00+ 190.00 TRIA= $7,102 Travelers Auto Physical Damage Declined -Can't compete with rate Lexington Auto Physical Damage Declined $10,000 minimum Hanover Insurance Company Crime-$1,000,000 Recommended Quote $2,832.00 Crime-$2,000,000 Quoted $4,961.00 American International Group Crime Quoted $3,583.00 Travelers Insurance Crime Declined Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 8 City of Temecula Coverage COMPANYINSURANCE OF • RESPONSE BCS Insurance Company Cyber Liability Quoted $18,073.00 ACE/Chubb Insurance Cyber Liability Declined $10,988.00/ National Union Fire Ins Co of PA Cyber Liability Recommended Quote $9,615.00 Net of Commissions Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 9 City of Temecula Coverage Coverage: Municipal Liability Carrier: AIX Specialty Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 Form Type: COVERAGE FORM TYPE RETROACTIVE DATE PENDING&PRIOR DATE Municipal Liability See Chart Below See Chart Below Not Applicable Coverage: Annual Retention Coverage Retroactive Major Lines of Coverage Specific Limit Aggregate Trigger Date Limit Auto Liability $10,000,000 N/A $150,000 Accident N/A General Liability $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Employee Benefits Liability $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A ................................... ................... .................... .................... ....................... ....................... Sexual Abuse Liability $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Law Enforcement Liability $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Public Officials Liability $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Employment Practices $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Liability Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Please see attached quote. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 10 City of Temecula Coverage Exclusions include, but are not limited to: COVERAGE • General Liability Bodily Injury and Property Damage from pollutants- Absolute Exclusion Losses arising from the ownership maintenance or use General Liability of aircraft,autos,or watercraft,with some minor exceptions including certain contractual obligations General Liability Employment Related Practices Exclusion General Liability Liquor Liability Exclusion General Liability Aircraft Products Exclusion General Liability Professional Liability Exclusion General Liability Real Property in Your Care, Custody, and Control Exclusion General Liability Absolute Asbestos Exclusion General Liability Absolute Lead Exclusion General Liability War and Nuclear Hazard General Liability Date Related Losses General Liability Mold/Fungus EBL Dishonest,fraudulent, criminal or malicious act or omission EBL Bodily Injury or Property Damage or Personal Injury EBL Failure of performance of contract EBL Failure of any investment to perform as represented by you Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of any law EBL concerning Workers Compensation, unemployment insurance,social security or disability benefits EBL Wrongful termination of an employee EBL Coercion,demotion, reassignment,discipline or harassment of an employee EBL Discrimination against an employee Municipal Liability Premium $134,160.00 Includes WC TRIA ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $134,160(With only WC TRIA) $134,746(With WC and Non-WC TRIA) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 11 City of Temecula Coverage Coverage: Municipal Liability&Excess Follow Form Liability Carrier: Allied World Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 Form Type: COVERAGE FORM TYPE RETROACTIVE DATE PENDING&PRIOR DATE Municipal Liability&Excess See Chart Below See Chart Below Not Applicable Liability Coverage: RetroactiveAnnual Retention Coverage AggregateMajor Lines of Coverage Specific Limit Date Limit Auto Liability $1,000,000 N/A $150,000 Accident N/A General Liability $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A .................................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ....................... ....................... Product and Completed $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Operations .................................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ....................... ....................... Employee Benefits Liability Included in GL Included in GL $250,000 Occurrence N/A ................................... ................... .................... .................... ....................... ....................... Public Crisis Event Coverage A: Public Crisis Response Each Event N/A .................................... $250,000 $250,000 $0 CoverageB: Public Crisis ..................... ..................... ..................... ....................... ....................... Communication $50,000 $50,000 $0 Each Event N/A .................................... Damageto Premises ..................... ..................... ..................... ...................... ...................... Rented to You $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Occurrence N/A Law Enforcement Liability $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Public Officials Liability $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Employment Practices $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $150,000 Occurrence N/A Liability Follow Form Excess $9,000,000 $9,000,000 Excess of Per Underlying Per Underlying Liability Underlying Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 12 City of Temecula Coverage Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION CAP ON LOSSES FROM CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM- IL T3 76 10/01/2010 GENERAL PURPOSE ENDORSEMENT-IL T8 00 08/01/2009 NUCLEAR ENERGY LIABILITY EXCLUSION ENDORSEMENT-IL 00 21 09/01/2008 FEDERAL TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT DISCLOSURE-IL T3 68 05/01/2010 COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS-IL TO 01 01/01/2007 COMMON POLICY DECLARATIONS-IL TO 02 11/01/1989 CALIFORNIA CHANGES-CANCELLATION AND NONRENEWAL-IL 02 70 09/01/2012 FORMS, ENDORSEMENTS AND SCHEDULE NUMBERS-IL T8 01 10/01/1993 MULTIPLE SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS-IL T3 96 02/01/2009 CALIFORNIA CHANGES-CG 32 34 01/01/2005 AMENDMENT OF BODILY INJURY DEFINITION -CG D4 09 04/01/2008 ADDITIONAL EXCLUSION-EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LIABILITY-CG T4 85 11/01/1988 EXCLUSION-IRC VIOLATIONS-CG DO 38 03/01/1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LIABILITY COVE -CG TO 43 11/01/1988 PROFESSIONAL HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SERVICES LIABI -CG D4 81 02/01/2009 SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS ENDT-COVERAGE A&B(COVER-CG D4 90 01/01/2014 SELF-INSURED RETENTION ENDT-LIMITED ABUSE OR MOLES-CG D4 91 01/01/2014 COVERAGE C-MEDICAL PAYMENTS EXCLUSION-GN 01 82 11/01/2003 EXCLUSION-EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEER WORKERS AS INSUR-CG D4 70 02/01/2009 AMENDMENT OF COVERAGE B-PERSONAL&ADVERTISING I -CG D4 71 02/01/2009 EXCLUSION-LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES OR OPERATIO-CG D4 72 02/01/2009 MOBILE EQUIPMENT REDEFINED-PUBLIC ENTITIES-CG D4 74 05/01/2014 EXCLUSION-PROFESSIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES-PU-CG D4 75 07/01/2010 EXCLUSION-PUBLIC USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY-CG D4 76 02/01/2009 FUNGI OR BACTERIA EXCLUSION-WITH LIMITED EXCEPT[ -CG D4 79 02/01/2009 PUBLIC ENTITIES XTEND ENDORSEMENT-CG D4 80 02/01/2009 EXCLUSION-VIOLATION OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTEC-CG D6 18 10/01/2011 AMENDMENT-EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LIABILITY-CG T5 30 06/01/1989 LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARATIO-PR TO 29 02/01/2014 PUBLIC ENTITY EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES LIABILI -PR TO 35 02/01/2014 LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM-PR T1 04 02/01/2009 PUBLIC ENTITY MANAGEMENT LIABILITY COVERAGE PART-PR TO 32 02/01/2014 PUBLIC ENTITY MANAGEMENT LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM-PR T1 07 02/01/2009 PUBLIC ENTITY EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES LIABILI -PR T1 09 02/01/2009 CAP ON LOSSES FROM CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM-PR T3 38 11/01/2010 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inca 13 City of Temecula Coverage Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION EXCLUSION-INJURY TO VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS-CG D2 98 11/01/2003 FAILURE TO SUPPLY-LIMITED COVERAGE-CG D4 86 02/01/2009 AMENDMENT-POLLUTION EXCLUSION-INCL LIMITED POLLUTI -CG D4 77 02/01/2009 SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS ENDT-EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LIA-CG D4 89 01/01/2014 FUNGI OR BACTERIA EXCLUSION-PR T3 43 02/01/2009 SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS ENDORSEMENT-LAW ENFORCEM-PR T3 99 01/01/2014 EXCLUSION-OTHER EMPLOYMENT LAWS-PR T5 04 07/01/2012 MOBILE EQUIPMENT REDEFINED-EXCLUSION OF VEHICLES-PR T5 12 05/01/2014 CALIFORNIA MANDATORY ENDORSEMENT-PR FO 20 12/01/2011 NEW MEXICO MANDATORY ENDORSEMENT-PR FO 29 05/01/2009 CALIFORNIA MANDATORY ENDORSEMENT-PR FO 67 02/01/2009 AMENDMENT OF COVERAGE-DESIGNATED BOARDS, COMMISS-PR T3 54 03/01/2010 AMENDMENT OF COVERAGE-DESIGNATED BOARDS, COMMISS-PR T3 72 03/01/2010 SELF-INSURED RETENTION ENDORSEMENT-PUBLIC ENTITY E-PR T3 92 01/01/2014 SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS END -PUBLIC ENTITY MANAGE-PR T3 97 01/01/2014 EXCLUSION-ASBESTOS-CG T4 78 02/01/1990 EXCLUSION-WAR-CG D2 42 01/01/2002 EXCLUSION-DISCRIMINATION -CG D1 42 01/01/1999 AMENDMENT OF CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY EXCLUSION-EXCEP-CG D4 21 07/01/2008 EXCLUSION-UNSOLICITED COMMUNICATION-CG D3 26 10/01/2011 EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION-CG D2 88 11/01/2003 LIMITED ABUSE OR MOLESTATION LIABILITY COVERAGE-CG D3 83 11/01/2010 AMENDMENT-NON CUMULATION OF EACH OCCURRENCE LIMI -CG D2 03 12/01/1997 OTHER INSURANCE-ADDITIONAL INSUREDS-PRIMARY AN-CG D4 25 07/01/2008 COVERAGE TERRITORY LIMITATION-CG D4 23 07/01/2008 AMENDMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS-TAXED COSTS-CG D4 22 07/01/2008 AMENDMENT-OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION&MEANING OF-CG D4 20 07/01/2008 AMENDMENT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE DEFINITION-CG D4 19 07/01/2008 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM -CG 00 01 10/01/2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COV-CG TO 34 11/01/2003 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARAT-CG TO 09 09/01/1993 KEY TO DECLARATIONS PREMIUM SCHEDULE-CG TO 08 11/01/2003 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM-CG T1 01 07/01/1986 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARA-CG TO 01 11/01/2003 CAP ON LOSSES FROM CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM-CG 21 70 01/01/2008 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inca 14 City of Temecula Coverage Exclusions include, but are not limited to: COVERAGE • General Liability Bodily Injury and Property Damage from pollutants- Absolute Exclusion Losses arising from the ownership maintenance or use General Liability of aircraft,autos,or watercraft,with some minor exceptions including certain contractual obligations General Liability Employment Related Practices Exclusion General Liability Liquor Liability Exclusion General Liability Aircraft Products Exclusion General Liability Professional Liability Exclusion General Liability Real Property in Your Care, Custody, and Control Exclusion General Liability Absolute Asbestos Exclusion General Liability Absolute Lead Exclusion General Liability War and Nuclear Hazard General Liability Date Related Losses General Liability Mold/Fungus EBL Dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act or omission EBL Bodily Injury or Property Damage or Personal Injury EBL Failure of performance of contract EBL Failure of any investment to perform as represented by you Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of any law EBL concerning Workers Compensation, unemployment insurance,social security or disability benefits EBL Wrongful termination of an employee EBL Coercion, demotion, reassignment, discipline or harassment of an employee EBL Discrimination against an employee Municipal Liability Premium $106,192.00 Excess Follow Form Premium $33,397.00 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $140,128.00 (Without Terrorism) $141,101.00 (With Terrorism) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 15 City of Temecula Program Details Coverage: Workers' Compensation Carrier: New York Marine And General Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 Coverage: DESCRIPTION • PAYROLL Coverage A-Workers Compensation $500,000 Statutory $15,262,782 Estimated Payroll Employer's Liability Limits: $500,000 $1,000,000 Bodily Injury by Accident Employers'Liability Limits: $500,000 $1,000,000 Bodily Injury by Disease per Employee Employer's Liability Limits: $500,000 $1,000,000 Bodily Injury by Disease-Policy Limit States: DESCRIPTION States Excluded: OH, ND,WA,WY Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Broad Form All States Except Monopolistic(ND, OH,WA,WY) Stop Gap Coverage Exclusions include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Voluntary Compensation Longshore&Harbor Workers'Act Owners or Officers Bodily Injury to an Employee While Employed in Violation of Law Bodily Injury Intentionally Caused by Insured Federal Employers'Liability Act Assumptions under Contract $48,263.00/ Premium—Subject to Audit Rate .3132 per$100 Payroll Rate ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $48,263.00 TRIA/TRIPRA PREMIUM INCLUDED (+Additional Surcharges, Taxes and Fees as applicable) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 16 City of Temecula Program Details Coverage: Property Carrier: American Home Assurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 2 Year Rate Guarantee with a Loss Ration not to Exceed 40% (see enclosed rate guarantee endorsement) The following is a general summary of the Insuring Agreement. Refer to actual policy form for complete terms and conditions. Coinsurance or Agreed Amount: DESCRIPTION • COINSURANCE All Covered Property Yes N/A—full Replacement Cost Coverage: DESCRIPTION Limit of Liability $167,768,843 In any One Occurrence Earthquake Sprinkler Leakage $167,768,843 Named Storm Included Equipment Breakdown $167,768,843 In any One Occurrence Deductibles/SIR: COVERAGE • The deductibles shown below apply per occurrence unless otherwise stated. Policy Deductible $10,000 Named Storm $10,000 Equipment Breakdown $10,000 Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTION Accounts Receivable $1,000,000 Arson or Theft Reward $100,000 Brands and Labels $100,000 Building Materials At Off Premises Storage For Property $500,000 Under Construction Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 17 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTION $10,000,000 or 25%of direct physical Debris Removal loss or damage to all covered property, whichever is less Deferred Payments $250,000 Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction -Demolition Coverage B $25,000,000 -Demolition Coverage C $25,000,000 Electronic Data and Media -Covered Causes of Loss(Other Than Cyber Perils) $2,500,000 -Cyber Perils $500,000 Errors or Omissions $10,000,000 Expediting Expenses $1,000,000 Fairs or Exhibitions $500,000 Fine Arts $500,000 Fire Brigade Charges and Extinguishing Expenses $250,000 Fungus, Mold or Spore $1,000,000 Installation Coverage $100,000 Land and Water Clean-Up $1,000,000 Locks and Keys $100,000 Machinery or Equipment Startup Option $100,000 Applicable to a separate occurrence only Miscellaneous Unnamed Locations $2,500,000 Money and Securities $50,000 Newly Acquired Property $10,000,000/120 Days Reporting Period Outdoor Property $250,000 Personal Property Not at a Covered Location $2,500,000 Preservation of Property $1,000,000 Professional Fees $250,000 Property Removed From a Covered Location $100,000 Salespersons Samples $100,000 Service Interruption $1,000,000 Spoilage $250,000 Transit $1,000,000 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 18 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTION 25%of the amount payable for direct physical loss or damage,subject to a Upgrade to Green maximum of$500,000. This includes any Time Element loss attributed to Upgrade to Green Valuable Papers and Records $5,000,000 Time Element Coverages -Attraction Property 30 days, subject to a maximum of $250,000 -Contingent Time Element $500,000 --Named Supplier/Customer $500,000 --Unnamed Supplier/Customer $500,000 -Contractual Penalties $100,000 -Crisis Management 30 days, subject to a maximum of $100,000 -Extended Period of Indemnity 180 days -Extra Expense $1,000,000 -Ingress &Egress 30 days, subject to a maximum of $500,000 -Interruption by Civil or Military Authority 30 days, subject to a maximum of $500,000 -Logistics Extra Cost $100,000 -Rental Value $10,000,000 -Royalties $50,000 - Service Interruption $1,000,000 Qualifying Period=24 Hours -Soft Costs $500,000 Additional Time Element Provisions: -Ordinary Payroll Provided for 60 days -Maximum Operations&Construction Period of Not Covered Indemnity(Gross Profits) Perils Covered: DESCRIPTIONTYPE All Risks of direct physical loss or damage to covered Applies Property at a covered location. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 19 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Commercial Property Policy 113813 (02/14) Multi-Year Policy Endorsement 117370(02/14) Cancellation/Non-Renewal Endorsement 52133(3/07) Exclusions include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Earth Movement Exclusion Flood Exclusion Government Action Exclusion War Exclusion Nuclear Hazard, Power Failure Date Related Losses Binding Requirements: DESCRIPTION Subject to receipt of signed Acceptance or Rejection of Terrorism Insurance Coverage Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION US Total Insured Values:$167,768,843 Total Premium includes TRIA Premium of$3,630 Multi-year policy offers Pro-rata at annual anniversary dates Three(3)year rate guarantee subject to incurred loss ratio less than 40%, no material change in reinsurance by AIG and no material change in the risk and/or quantum of natural catastrophe exposures insured from inception. Animals are insured for Defined Perils Only Terrorism: Covered and Included Within the Policy Limit Coverage Territory: United States, its territories and possessions and Puerto Rico, including their respective coastal waters. If any coverage is provided on a worldwide basis,such worldwide coverage shall not include any jurisdiction prohibited or restricted under United Nations resolutions or the trade or economic sanctions, laws or regulations of the European Union or the United States of America. Losses are only covered within the coverage territory. Named Storm: In any one occurrence for named storm as a result of all loss or damage(to the extent covered) including, but not limited to, loss or damage from wind, hail, lightning,tornado, rain or water(whether driven by wind or not),flood,or any wind driven objects or debris, regardless of the number of covered locations,coverages,or Covered Causes of Loss under this Policy. Premium $85,303.00 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $89,803.00 (Includes Engineering Fee of$4,500) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 20 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Coverage: Property Carrier: Zurich American Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 The following is a general summary of the Insuring Agreement. Refer to actual policy form for complete terms and conditions. Coinsurance or Agreed Amount: DESCRIPTION • COINSURANCE % All Covered Property Yes N/A Coverage: DESCRIPTION Limit of Liability $166,000,000 Deductibles/SIR: COVERAGE • The deductibles shown below apply per occurrence unless otherwise stated. Policy Deductible $10,000 Property Damage and 72 Hour Time Element $10,000 Property Damage (PD) &72 Hours Time Element(TE) combined per Location at each Direct Dependent Time Element Location, Indirect Dependent Time Element Location, and Attraction Property where the physical loss or damage occurs regardless of any other Contingent Time Element deductibles that may also apply. However, when the loss results from Earth Movement, Named Storm and/or Flood such loss shall be subject to its respective deductible(s)for Direct Dependent Time Element Location as follows: Named Storm $10,000 Property Damage and 72 Hour Time Element Equipment Breakdown $10,000 Property Damage and 72 Hour Time Element Sublimits(Maximum): DESCRIPTION Gross Earnings $30,000,000 Extra Expense $1,000,000 Leasehold Interest $500,000 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc] 21 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTION Accounts Receivable $1,000,000 Computer Systems Damage $500,000 Aggregate $500,000*But not to Exceed: For scheduled Direct Dependent Time Element Location and scheduled Indirect Dependent Time Element Location $500,000 per location and per occurrence, however NCP for Earth Movement, Flood,Named Storm and Volcanic Eruption; For unscheduled Direct Dependent Time Element Location,$500,000 per location and per occurrence,however NCP for Earth Movement,Flood,Named Storm or Volcanic Eruption; For unscheduled Indirect Dependent Time Element Location,however Content Time Element NCP for Per per location and in the occurrence; Occurrence however NCP for Earth Movement, Flood, Named Storm or Volcanic Eruption; For Indirect Dependent Time Element Location as defined in policy line 7.28.02 (3rd or more tiers),however NCP for Earth Movement,Flood,Named Storm or Volcanic Eruption; For ATTRACTION PROPERTY Located within 1 miles of the Insured Location $100,000 per location and in the occurrence;however NCP for Earth Movement, Flood,Named Storm or Volcanic Eruption Debris Removal $5,000,000 Decontamination Costs $500,000 Deferred Payments $250,000 ur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc, 22 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTION Errors and Omissions $10,000,000 Expediting Costs $1,000,000 Fine Arts $250,000 Fire Department Service Charge $250,000 Increased Cost of Construction $25,000,000 Land and Water Contaminant Cleanup, Removal and $1,000,000 Aggregate Disposal Land Improvements $50,000 Misc. Personal Property $2,500,000 Misc. Unnamed Location $2,500,000 Off Premises Service Interruption $500,000 Professional Fees $250,000 Radioactive Contamination $500,000 Tenants Prohibited Access $250,000 Transit $1,000,000 Valuable Papers and Records $5,000,000 New Construction and Additions $10,000,000 Off Premises Storage for Property Under Construction $500,000 Breakdown of Equipment $166,000,000 Not to Exceed - Ammonia Contamination $250,000 Spoilage $250,000 Named Storm Not to Exceed a) NCP for Property located in Zone 1 for Named Storm as described in Appendix C&D Aggregate b) NCP for Property located in Zone 2 for Named Storm as described in Appendix C&D Contractors Equipment $555,609 Additional Coverage:Time and Distance Limits of Liability DESCRIPTION Attraction Property Located within 1 mile(s)of the Insured Location 30 day period for property within 1 Civil or Military Authority mile(s) but not to exceed a $1,000,000 limit. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 23 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Additional Coverage:Time and Distance Limits of Liability DESCRIPTION The actual Time Element loss sustained by the 30 day(s) Insured arising out of the Delay in Completion Gross Earnings Not Applicable Extended Period of Liability 180 day(s) Ordinary Payroll 90 day(s) Impounded Water 30 day period but not to exceed a $50,000 limit. 30 day period for property within 1 Ingress/Egress mile(s) but not to exceed a $500,000 limit International Interdependency 30 day period but not to exceed a $100,000 limit Newly Acquired 30 day period but not to exceed a $10,000,000 limit per location 48 hours for Gross Earnings: not to Protection and Preservation of Propery exceed a $500,000 limit per Location. Additional Coverage:Time Specifications DESCRIPTION Named Storm Occurrence 72 Hours Cancellation for Non-payment of Premium 10 Days Cancellation of Any Other Reason 90 Days Additional Coverage: Qualifying Period DESCRIPTION OFF PREMISES SERVICE INTERRUPTION PROPERTY DAMAGE & 24 Hours TIME ELEMENT COVERAGE applies separately at each location. COMPUTER SYSTEMS DAMAGE COVERAGE 24 Hours TENANTS PROHIBITED ACCESS COVERAGE applies separately at each 48 Hours location. NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS: Delay 30 Days in Completion applies separately at each location. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 24 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION See attached Exclusions include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Earth Movement Exclusion Flood Exclusion Government Action Exclusion War Exclusion Nuclear Hazard, Power Failure Date Related Losses Sanctions Exclusion Endorsement Binding Requirements: DESCRIPTION Subject to receipt of signed Acceptance or Rejection of Terrorism Insurance Coverage Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION US Total Insured Values:$166,000,000 $88,053.00 Premium Terrorism$2,290.00 $90,354.00 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST (Includes Engineering Fee, Taxes &Fee) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 25 City of Temecula Program Details Coverage: Difference in Conditions Primary$10M Carrier: Empire Indemnity Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 The following is a general summary of the Insuring Agreement. Refer to actual policy form for complete terms and conditions. Coinsurance or Agreed Amount: DESCRIPTION AGREED AMOUNT • Applies Yes N/A Coverage: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DIC including Flood, Earth Movement, excluding EQSL-Limits apply per occurrence and in the aggregate separately for the following flood, earth movement. NEW Definition expanded from Earthquake to Earth Movement=Any Earth Movement including Earthquake, Landslide, Mine Subsidence, Earth Sinking, Rising Shifting or Sinkhole Collapse. Policy Limit $10,000,000 part of $10,000,000 Primary Deductibles: COVERAGE AMOUNT Including Time Element-Business Income, Extra Expense, Rental Value Minimum EQ Deductible $50,000 AOP $25,000 Terrorism Same as EQ 5% per unit including Business Income except as Earthquake deductible respects the former YMCA building/pool located at Margarita Park, 29119 Margarita Rd. EQ deductible is 25%per unit including Business Income $50,000 $100,000 except for locations situated in Flood Zones A, Flood deductible V, X500 (X Shaded), and B, the deductible is 2% per location including BI/EE, subject to $500,000 minimum per occurrence Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTION LIMIT AMOUNT TYPE *Building Ordinance/ICC/Demo Sublimit $10,000,000 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 26 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTIONLIMIT • TYPE Placement coverage extensions/sublimited items - Course of Construction $5,000,000 Newly Acquired Properties(120 day reporting) $5,000,000 Accounts Receivable $1,000,000 Errors &Omissions $1,000,000 $1,000,000/subject Fine Arts to$100,000 maximum per item Miscellaneous Unnamed Locations(defined as a location that had not been included in the Statement of Values on file with the Company and $500,000 has not been reported to the Company as may be required in the policy provisions elsewhere) Service Interruption-PD&BI(excluding overhead T&D lines) $1,000,000 Leasehold Interest $500,000 Miscellaneous Personal Property of the Insured (not reported and not $500,000 at covered premises) Personal Property of Others $500,000 Rented Mobile/Contractors Equipment $500,000 Land Improvements including trees,shrubs and plants $250,000 Loss Adjustment Expenses(excluding fees associated with public $100,000 adjuster) Civil Authority 8 consecutive weeks Ingress/Egress 8 consecutive weeks Extended Period of Indemnity 365 days Valuations: DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS Replacement Cost Property Damage Actual Loss Sustained Time Element including Extra Expense Endorsements include,but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Company Form Debris Removal clause(Company Form) Disclosure Of Important Information Relating To Terrorism Risk Insurance Act U-GU-632-D CW(01/15) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc., 27 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Exclusions include,but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Pollution (Company Form) Asbestos I Contamination(Company Form) Mold(Company Form) EQSL Theft Boiler and Machinery Electronic Data and Computer Systems Exclusion (Company Form) All Risk Perils(Including Windstorm) Ensuing Loss Flood Locations Located in a 100 Year Zone Binding Requirements: DESCRIPTION Subject to Signed D—2 Subject to Signed Surplus Lines Filing Confirmation Subject to Signed Declination Of Terrorism Coverage Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION TIV: $167,768,843 =9%Increase over expiring exposure Note: Swett&Crawford is responsible for the Surplus Lines Tax Filing in the designated Home State. Perils: DIC including Flood, Earth Movement excluding EQSL Terrorism(TRIPRA of 2007) *Building Ordinance/ICC/Demo Limits apply per occurrence and in the aggregate. Unit is defined as:a)Each Separate Building or Structure b)Contents in each Separate Building or Structure c)Property in the Yard d)Business Income/Extra Expense Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 28 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION Property Covered: -Real Property -Business Income -Rental Value -Leasehold Interests -Fine Arts -Playground Equipment -Business Personal Property -EDP -Tenant Improvements/Betterments -Accounts Receivable -Valuable Papers Territory/Locations: CA only-Per SOV in email dated 4/20/16 on file with the insurance company Warrant All Risk Underlyer The exclusion for Flood Zones A,V&X500, X(Shaded), and B does not apply to the following locations: 1. 43200 Business Park Dr, Temecula, CA 2. 43230 Business Park Dr, Temecula, CA 3. 42081 Main St., Temecula, CA 4. 42049-51 Main St., Temecula, CA 5. 28300 Mercedes, Temecula, CA 6. 2 Arches at Old Town Temecula, Temecula, CA In addition, it is agreed that if there is any change in Flood Zone designations by FEMA to any other covered location under this policy we will agree to cover. This agreement is limited to changes in Flood Zone classifications made after the inception date of this policy Premium $124,800.00 Taxes Surplus Lines Tax-CA(3%) $3,757.20 Total Taxes $3,757.20 Surcharges&Assessments Policy Catastrophe Analysis-CA(subject to $200.00 SLT) Total Surcharges&Assessments $200.00 Fees Stamping Fee -CA(.2%) $250.48 Inspection Fee -CA(subject to SLT) $240.00 Total Fees $490.48 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $129,247.68 Minimum Earned Premium- 25.00 % TRIA/TRIPRA PREMIUM $62,400.00 (+Additional Surcharges, Taxes and Fees as applicable) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 29 City of Temecula Program Details Coverage: Difference in Conditions $25M xs$10M Carrier: QBE Specialty Insurance Company Ironshore Europe Limited Ironshore Insurance Ltd General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 Participation Schedule: CARRIER PARTICIPATING LIMIT Hudson Specialty Insurance Company 20%, $5,000,000 Ironshore Europe Limited 10%,$2,500,000 QBE Specialty Insurance Company 15%,$3,750,000 Ironshore Insurance Ltd 10%,$2,500,000 General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona 25%,$6,250,000 Underwriters at Lloyd's, London 20%,$5,000,000 The following is a general summary of the Insuring Agreement. Refer to actual policy form for complete terms and conditions. Coinsurance or Agreed Amount: DESCRIPTION • COINSURANCE All Covered Property Yes N/A Coverage: DESCRIPTIONLIMIT TYPE • DIC including Flood, Earth Limits apply per occurrence and in the aggregate Movement;excluding EQSL: separately for the following: Flood, Earth movement Policy Limit Limit $25,000,000 Layer Limit Limit $25,000,000 Excess of Limit $10,000,000 Deductibles: 5%per unit incl. BI $50,000 minimum except as Earthquake respects the former YMCA building/pool located at Margarita Park,29119 Margarita Rd., EQ deductible is 25%per unit including BI$50,000 minimum Minimum EQ Deductible $100,000 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. - 30 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Deductibles: COVERAGE • All Other Peril $25,000 Terrorism Same as EQ Earthquake,State CA 5% Per Unit Flood-Per Occurrence, except as respects locations wholly or partially within Special Flood Hazard Areas $100,000 (SFHA), areas of 100-year flooding, as defined by the FEMA -Building -Per Building $500,000 -Contents-Per Building $500,000 -Time Element-Per Occurrence $100,000 Additional Coverage: DESCRIPTIONLIMIT • TYPE (collectively for Building Ordinance/ICC/Demo Sublimit $25,000,000 Demo and ICC, not individually) Course of Construction Sublimit $5,000,000 Newly Acquired Properties(120 day reporting) Sublimit $5,000,000 Accounts Receivable Sublimit $1,000,000 Errors&Omissions Sublimit $1,000,000 Fine Arts,subject to$100,000 maximum per item Sublimit $1,000,000 Miscellaneous Unnamed Locations(defined as a location that had not been included in the Statement of Values on file with the Sublimit $500,000 Company and has not been reported to the Company as may be required in the policy provisions elsewhere) Service Interruption-PD&BI (excluding overhead T& D lines Sublimit $1,000,000 Leasehold Interest Sublimit $500,000 Miscellaneous Personal Property of the Insured (not reported Sublimit $500,000 and not at covered premises) Personal Property of Others Sublimit $500,000 Rented Mobile/Contractors Equipment Sublimit $500,000 Land Improvements including trees,shrubs and plants Sublimit $250,000 Loss Adjustment Expenses(excluding fees associated with Sublimit $100,000 public adjuster) Civil Authority Sublimit 8 consecutive weeks Ingress/Egress 8 consecutive weeks Extended Period of Indemnity 365 days Arthur J.Gallagher&Co. nI' ssi rance Brokers of CA.,Inca 31 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Valuations: DESCRIPTION • Replacement Cost Property Damage Actual Loss Sustained Time Element including Extra Expense Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Company Excess Follow Form (subject to review and approval of form we are to follow) Statement of Values form Exclusions include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Pollution (Company Form) Asbestos/Contamination(Company Form) Mold(Company Form) Earthquake Sprinkler Leakage Theft Boiler and Machinery Electronic Data and Computer Systems Exclusion (Company Form) Underlying Sub limited Coverages Exclusion All Risk Perils(Including Windstorm) Ensuing Loss Lloyd's Radioactive Contamination Exclusion Clause Lloyd's Land,Water and Air Exclusion Lloyd's Seepage and/or Pollution and/or Contamination Exclusion Lloyd's Electronic Data Recognition Exclusion Lloyd's War and Civil War Exclusion Clause Lloyd's Biological or Chemical Materials Exclusion The exclusion for Flood Zones A,V&X500,X(Shaded), and B does not apply to the following locations: 1.43200 Business Park Dr,Temecula, CA 2.43230 Business Park Dr,Temecula, CA 3.42081 Main St.,Temecula, CA 4.42049-51 Main St.,Temecula, CA 5.28300 Mercedes,Temecula, CA 6.2 Arches at Old Town Temecula,Temecula, CA Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 32 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Binding Requirements: DESCRIPTION Subject to Sign D-2 Form Subject to Receipt of Surplus Lines Filing Confirmation Return Within 15 Days Of Policy Effective Date Subject to Sign TRIA Form Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION Peril: DIG including Flood, Earth Movement excluding EQSL Terrorism (TRIPRA of 2007) Territory/Locations: CA only-Per SOV in email dated 4/20/16 on file with the insurance company TIV:$167,768,843 Property Covered: Real Property, Business Income, Extra Expense, Leasehold Interests, Fine Arts, Playground Equipment,Arches&Veterans Memorial, Business Personal Property, EDP,Tenant Improvements/Betterments, Accounts Receivable,Valuable Papers Conditions: Warrant All Risk Underlyer Debris Removal clause(Company Form) Excess Limit of Liability and Participation Clause(Company Form) Drop Down clause applicable only to covered locations, perils and interests TRIA Split Up: QBE Specialty Insurance Company: $5,438 Underwriters at Lloyd's: $7,250 Hudson Specialty Insurance Company: $7,250 Ironshore Europe, Ltd, Ironshore Insurance Ltd:$7,250 General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona:$9,063 Premium Split Up: QBE Specialty Insurance Company: $10,875.00 Lloyds of London, Hiscox Syndicate#0033 : $14,500.00 Ironshore Europe Limited/Ironshore Insurance Ltd. : $14,500.00 Hudson Specialty Insurance Company: $14,500.00 General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona: $18,125.00 Carrier Fee Split Up: QBE Specialty Insurance Company: $160.00 Lloyds of London, Hiscox Syndicate#0033 : $160.00 Ironshore Europe Limited/Ironshore Insurance Ltd. : $160.00 Hudson Specialty Insurance Company: $160.00 General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona: $160.00 3%CA Tax Split Up: QBE Specialty Insurance Company: $331.05 Lloyds of London, Hiscox Syndicate#0033 : $439.80 Ironshore Europe Limited/Ironshore Insurance Ltd. : $439.80 Hudson Specialty Insurance Company: $439.80 General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona: $548.55 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 33 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION 0.2%CA SF Split Up: QBE Specialty Insurance Company: $22.07 Lloyds of London, Hiscox Syndicate#0033 : $29.32 Ironshore Europe Limited/Ironshore Insurance Ltd. : $29.32 Hudson Specialty Insurance Company : $29.32 General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona: $36.57 Premium $60,000.00 Taxes Surplus Lines Tax-CA(3%) $1,818.00 Total Taxes $1,818.00 Surcharges&Assessments Policy Catastrophe Analysis-CA(subject to $600.00 SLT) Total Surcharges&Assessments $600.00 Fees Stamping Fee-CA(.2%) $121.20 Total Fees $121.20 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $62,539.20 Minimum Earned Premium- 25.00 % TRIA/TRIPRA PREMIUM $30,000.00 (+Additional Surcharges, Taxes and Fees as applicable) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 34 City of Temecula Program Details Coverage: Auto Physical Damage -Inland Marine Equipment Floater Carrier: Hanover Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 Coverage:Auto Physical Damage COVEREDDESCRIPTION AMOUNT BASIS AUTOS Collision ACV, cost to repair or replace,or stated amount, 7 whichever is less Comp/OTC ACV,cost to repair or replace,or stated amount, 7 whichever is less Estimated Fleet Values/ $2,667,341 —The most we will pay for loss in any Catastrophe Limit One Occurrence for all vehicles. Additional Debris Removal $25,000 Limit Newly Acquired &Substitute $1,000,000 Vehicles Pollutant Cleanup&Removal $10,000 Towing&Labor Limit $25,000 Rental Reimbursement $500 per Day/$10,000 Max. Deductibles: Will • $5,000 Covered Autos: SYMBOLI SYMBOLNAME DESCRIPTION OF COVERED DESIGNATION SYMBOLS Can only be used for Liability insurance. Its use provides coverage for any auto with which the insured has contact, including owned and non-owned, 1 Any Auto hired vehicles,and newly acquired vehicles. It includes coverage for non- owned auto, no-fault insurance, uninsured motorists,or physical damage insurance Only those autos you own(and for Liability Coverage any trailers you don't 2 Owned Autos Only own while attached to power units you own).This includes those autos you acquire ownership of after the policy begins. 3 Owned Private Passenger Autos Only the private passenger autos you own.This includes those private Only passenger autos you acquire ownership of after the policy begins. Only those autos you own that are not of the private passenger type(and 4 Owned Autos Other Than Private for Liability Coverage any trailers you don't own while attached to power Passenger Autos Only units you own).This includes those autos not of the private passenger type you acquire ownership of after the policy begins. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. - 35 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Covered Autos: SYMBOL SYMBOLNAME DESCRIPTION OF COVERED DESIGNATION SYMBOLS Only those autos you own that are required to have No-Fault benefits in the state where they are licensed or principally garaged.This includes those 5 Owned Autos Subject To No-Fault autos you acquire ownership of after the policy begins provided they are required to have No-Fault benefits in the state where they are licensed or principally garaged. Only those autos you own that because of the law in the state where they Owned Autos Subject To A are licensed or principally garaged are required to have and cannot reject 6 Compulsory Uninsured Motorists Uninsured Motorists Coverage.This includes those autos you acquire Law ownership of after the policy begins provided they are subject to the same state uninsured motorists'requirement. Only those autos described in Item Three of the Declarations for which a 7 Specifically Described Autos premium charge is shown(and for Liability Coverage any trailers you don't own while attached to any power unit described in Item Three). Only those autos you lease, hire,rent or borrow.This does not include any 8 Hired Autos Only auto you lease, hire,rent,or borrow from any of your employees, partners (if you are a partnership),members(if you are a limited liability company)or members of their households. Only those autos you do not own,lease,hire,rent or borrow that are used in connection with your business.This includes autos owned by your 9 Nonowned Autos Only employees, partners(if you are a partnership),members(if you are a limited liability company),or members of their households but only while used in your business or your personal affairs. Mobile Equipment Subject To Only those autos that are land vehicles and that would qualify under the 19 Compulsory Or Financial definition of mobile equipment under this policy if they were not subject to a Responsibility Or Other Motor compulsory or financial responsibility law or other motor vehicle insurance Vehicle Insurance Law Only law where they are licensed or principally garaged. Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION NAMED INSURED- IL T8 03 COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS-IL TO 01 01/01/2007 FORMS, ENDORSEMENTS AND SCHEDULE NUMBERS-IL T8 01 10/01/1993 COMMON POLICY DECLARATIONS-IL TO 02 11/01/1989 CA AUTO BODY REPAIR CONS BILL OF RIGHTS-PN CA 36 09/01/2005 CALIFORNIA CHANGES-CANC AND NONRENEWAL-IL 02 70 09/01/2012 NUCLEAR ENERGY LIAB EXCL END-BROAD FORM-IL 00 21 09/01/2008 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NOT COVERED-CA 20 18 10/01/2013 PUBLIC ENTITY AUTO EXTENSION ENDORSEMENT-CA T4 46 02/01/2015 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTOS-CA 24 02 VOL FIREFIGHTERS/WORKERS INJURIES EXC-CA 20 30 10/01/2013 CALIFORNIA CHANGES-CA 01 43 10/01/2013 AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYEE DEFINITION -CA T4 59 02/01/2015 PUB ENTITY-CHG IN PD COV-AGREED VAL ENDT-CA T4 47 02/01/2009 AMENDMENT OF BODILY INJURY DEFINITION-CA T4 43 06/01/2009 ur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc„ 36 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION LIMITED MEXICO COVERAGE-CA 01 21 02/01/1999 BUSINESS AUTO POLICY-CA 00 01 10/01/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS-BUSINESS AUTO COV FORM-CA TO 31 02/01/2015 BA COVERAGE PART DECS(ITEM 3)-CA TO 02 02/01/2015 BUSINESS AUTO COV PART ITEMS 1,2-CA TO 01 02/01/2015 Exclusions include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Loss or Damage to Tires unless caused during accident War, Invasion, Insurrection or Civil Commotion Nuclear Illegal Acts Wear,Tear, Freezing Mechanical or Electrical Breakdown Billing Rules: DESCRIPTION Back-Bill On/Off Rule: Units will be charged a full month's premium for the month they are added and no premium for the month deleted unless they are added&deleted in the same month. Pre-Bill On/Off Rule: Units will be charged a full month's premium for the month they are added and no premium for the month deleted unless they are added&deleted in the same month. 15th Rule—All additions effective from the 1 st to the 15th of the month,will be charged a full month's premium for the month they are effective.Any additions effective after the 15th will not be charged premium for the month effective. Deletions effective from the 1st to the 15th,will not be charged for the month the delete is effective.Any deletions effective after the 15th will be charged a full month's premium. The only exception to the rule is any addition&deletion in the same month will be charged a full month's premium. Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION Gallagher Transportation will print and mail to you our"TIMS" report(Master Bill)around the first of each month for the previous month's premium. Premium payment is due to Gallagher Transportation by the 15th of that month. Any addition,deletions or changes in value must be reported in writing immediately Coverage is provided for scheduled units under lease to the Motor Carrier for the policy term or until lease is terminated NO COVERAGE FOR DOWN TIME Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc„1 37 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Coverage: Contractors Equipment Coverage SUBJECT OF • Contractors Equipment Catastrophe Limit $324,860 Contractors Equipment Maximum Per Item Limit $1,000,000 Deductible: Wil kyl 1011j $5,000 Valuations: DESCRIPTION • Replacement Cost Coverage Extensions: SUBJECT OF INSURANCE TYPE 25%of the amount paid for the direct physical loss or damage but"we"will Debris Removal not pay more for loss to property and debris removal combined than the"limit' for the damaged property Additional Debris $25,000 Removal Expense Equipment Leased or $50,000 Rented to Others Equipment Loaned to $50,000 Others Fraud and Deceit $50,000 Waterborne $50,000 Supplemental Coverages: SUBJECT OF • Construction Equipment Any One Trailer $10,000 Any One Loss $50,000 Employee Tools $10,000 Fire Department Service Charge $1,000 Pollutant Cleanup and Removal $25,000 Recharge of Fire Extinguishing $1,000 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc, 38 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Supplemental Coverages: SUBJECT OF • Rental Reimbursement Limit: $50,000 Waiting Period: 72 Hours Reward for Recovery of Stolen Equipment $1,000 Spare Parts and Fuel $10,000 Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION NAMED INSURED-IL T8 03 COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS-IL TO 01 01/01/2007 FORMS, ENDORSEMENTS AND SCHEDULE NUMBERS-IL T8 01 10/01/1993 COMMON POLICY DECLARATIONS-IL TO 02 11/01/1989 Exclusions include, but are not limited to: COVERAGETYPE DESCRIPTION Inland Marine Cranes&Rigging Equipment Inland Marine, Equipment Floater Mechanical or Equipment Breakdown Equipment Floater Pollution Equipment Floater, EDP,Transit War and Nuclear Hazard Equipment Floater, EDP,Transit Wear and Tear, Gradual Deterioration,or Obsolescence Equipment Floater, EDP,Transit Date Related Losses Equipment Floater Mold/Fungus EDP Utility Service Interruption EDP Expected or Intended Loss EDP Programming Errors Transit Government Authority Exclusion Auto Physical Damage Premium $6,162.00 Contractor's Equipment Premium $750.00 TRIA Premium $190.00 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $7102.00 Subject to Audit: Annually Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 39 City of Temecula Program Details Coverage: Crime Carrier: Hanover Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2015 to 7/1/2016 Coverage: DESCRIPTION Employee Theft—Per Loss $1,000,000 $10,000 Employee Theft—Per Employee Coverage Not Covered Not Covered Forgery or Alteration $1,000,000 $10,000 Inside Premises-Theft of Money and Securities Not Covered Not Covered Inside Premises-Robbery or Safe Burglary of Other Property Not Covered Not Covered Outside The Premises Not Covered Not Covered Money Order&Counterfeit Paper Currency Not Covered Not Covered Computer Fraud $1,000,000 $10,000 Funds Transfer Fraud $1,000,000 $10,000 Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Include Treasurers or Tax Collectors as Employees—CR 00 26 05 06 Include Chairperson and Members of Specified Comm —CR 25 12 08 07 Include Volunteer Workers other than Fund Solicitors—CR 01 64 06 06 Add Faithful Performance of Duty Coverage for Government—CR 25 19 05 06 ($1,000,000/$10,000) Include Expenses Incurred to Establish Amount of Coverage—CR 25 40 08 07 ($10,000) Bonded Employee Exclusion Deleted—181-1515 (Bonded EE's) Funds Transfer Fraud/False Pretenses— 181-1658 ($100,000/$10,000) Amend Computer Fraud -181-1659 Prior Theft or Dishonesty— 181-1642 ($10,000) State Endorsement—CR 02 49 08 07 Exclusions include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Third Party Employee Dishonesty Government Action Exclusion Accounting or Arithmetic Errors Voluntary Parting of Property Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 40 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Exclusions include,but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Loss in which the existence of such loss is only proved by a profit and loss comparison or inventory records Any theft or criminal act committed by a partner of the insured Loss Due to Employee Dishonesty Date Related Losses Premium Option 1 -$1,000,000 =$2,832.00 Option 2 -$2,000,000 =$4,961.00 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $2,832.00 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 41 City of Temecula Program Details Coverage: Cyber Liability Carrier: BCS Insurance Company Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 Form Number: 94.111 (01/15), 94.200 (01/15) Form Type: COVERAGE FORM TYPE�RETROACTIVE DATE PENDING &PRIOR DATE Cyber Liability-Full Prior Acts Claims Made Full Prior Acts Coverage: DESCRIPTIONLIMIT • TYPE Policy Limits Of Liability And Coverage Purchased - -A.Aggregate Limit of Liability(Aggregate for Each and Every Claim Limit $1,000,000 including Claims Expenses) -B.Sublimit of Liability for Individual Coverages Purchased Sublimit $1,000,000 Per Claim Sublimit Of Liability Includes Claim Expenses - -A. Privacy Liability(including Employee Privacy) Sublimit $1,000,000 -B. Privacy Regulatory Claims Coverage Sublimit $1,000,000 -C. Security Breach Response Coverage Sublimit $1,000,000 -D.Security Liability Sublimit $1,000,000 -E. Multimedia Liability Sublimit $1,000,000 -F. Cyber Extortion Sublimit $1,000,000 -G. Business Income and Digital Asset Restoration Sublimit $1,000,000 -H. PCI DSS Assessment Sublimit $100,000 Aggregate Sublimit Of Liability - -A. Privacy Liability(including Employee Privacy) Sublimit $1,000,000 -B. Privacy Regulatory Claims Coverage Sublimit $1,000,000 -C.Security Breach Response Coverage Sublimit $1,000,000 -D.Security Liability Sublimit $1,000,000 -E. Multimedia Liability Sublimit $1,000,000 -F. Cyber Extortion Sublimit $1,000,000 -G. Business Income and Digital Asset Restoration Sublimit $1,000,000 -H. PCI DSS Assessment Sublimit $100,000 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. - 42 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Deductibles/S I Rs: COVERAGETYPE • Retention Retention (Including Claims Expenses)-Each Claim Retention -A. Privacy Liability(including $15,000 Employee Privacy) Retention -B. Privacy Regulatory Claims $15,000 Coverage Retention -C. Security Breach Response $15,000 Coverage Retention -D. Security Liability $15,000 Retention -E. Multimedia Liability $15,000 Retention -F. Cyber Extortion $15,000 Retention -G. Business Income and Digital $15,000/12 Hours Waiting Period Asset Restoration Retention -H. PCI DSS Assessment $15,000 Any Other Continuity or Specific Dates/Limits applicable to the Claims-Made Conditions: • CONTINUITY DATE CONDITIONS Cyber Liability-Full Prior Acts -- Claims Made Coverage: Should you elect to change carriers(if a new retroactive date is provided)or non-renew this policy,a supplemental extended reporting endorsement may be available subject to policy terms and conditions.You must request the extended reporting period in writing to the carrier within ([Days To Extend])days of the expiration date.The cost of this extended reporting period is[Percent Cost]%of the annual premium and is fully earned.The extended reporting period extends only to those claims made during the extended reporting period for wrongful acts that occurred prior to the expiration date and would have been covered by the policy. Claims must be reported to the carrier within([Days To Report])days of the end of the policy period.The extended reporting period does not increase the limits of liability and is subject to all policy terms,conditions and exclusions. Definition of Claim: DESCRIPTION "Claim" means: 1.A written demand received by"You"for money or services, including the service of a civil suit or institution of arbitration proceedings; 2. Initiation of a civil suit against"You" seeking injunctive relief(meaning a temporary restraining order or a preliminary or permanent injunction); 3. Solely with respect to Coverage B., a"Regulatory Claim" made against"You"; 4. A"PCI DSS Assessment'; or 5. Solely with respect to Coverage F., a"Cyber Extortion Threat' made against"You." Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 43 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Definition of Claim: DESCRIPTION Multiple"Claims" arising from the same or a series of related or repeated acts, errors, or omissions or from any continuing acts, errors, or omissions shall be considered a single"Claim"for the purposes of this Policy, irrespective of the number of claimants or"You" involved in the "Claim". All such"Claims"shall be deemed to have been made at the time of the first such"Claim"was made or deemed made under Section IX.A Incident or Claim Reporting Provision: REPORTING • • DESCRIPTION Clyde&Co. US LLP, 101 Second Street,24th Floor, San Francisco CA Claim 94105 USA,joan.dambrosio@clydeco.us,24 Hour Security Breach Hotline: 1-855-217-5204 Extended Reporting Period(ERP)Options*: DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT PREMIUM DUE % • DATE PREMIUM Optional"Extended Reporting (100%)of the annual (30)days (12) Period": premium month *If ERP coverage is desired, then that request must be in writing to the carrier. Run Off Provisions: DESCRIPTION PREMIUM PREMIUM DUE LENGTH %OF AMOUNT DATE PREMIUM Refer to attached policy form -- -- -- Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Cyber and Privacy Liability Insurance Policy 94.111 (01/15), 94.200 (01/15) California Amendatory Endorsement 94.801 CA(01/15) CA Premium Return Disclosure Notice BCSI-X009 CA(01/15), BCSI-X013(01/15) Exclusions include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION Nuclear Incident Exclusion Clause Liability Direct(Broad)(USA)94.102 (01/15) Radioactive Contamination Exclusion Clause Liability Direct(USA)94.103(01/15) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 44 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Defense Limitations: COVERAGE • DOLLAR DEFENSE DEFENSE COST TYPE LIMIT LIMIT COMMENTS Cyber Liability Applies Other/Included in the Limits of Liability Binding Requirements: DESCRIPTION Subject to Currently Signed and Dated Application Other Significant Terms and Conditions/Restrictions: DESCRIPTION Territorial Limits:Worldwide Choice of Law: New York Wholesaler: Risk Placement Services 7.5% Premium $18,073.00 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $18,073.00 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 45 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Coverage: Cyber Liability Carrier: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 Form Type: COVERAGE FORM TYPE RETROACTIVE DATE CONTINUITY DATE S&P(Security and Privacy Liability Insurance, Claims Made Policy Inception Policy Inception Regulatory Action Sublimit of Liability) EM Event Management Claims Made Not Applicable Policy Inception Insurance CE Cyber Extortion Claims Made Not Applicable Policy Inception Insurance Coverage: RETENTIONDESCRIPTION LIMIT DEDUCTIBLE/ Limit of Liability $1,000,000 Media&Content Insurance $1,000,000 $25,000 S&P-Security and Privacy Liability Insurance $1,000,000 $25,000 Regulatory Action Sublimit of Liability $1,000,000 $25,000 EM Event Management Insurance $1,000,000 $25,000 CE Cyber Extortion Insurance $1,000,000 $25,000 Reputation Guard $50,000 $0 Co-Insurance=20% Claims Made Coverage: Should you elect to change carriers(if a new retro-active date is provided)or non-renew this policy,a supplemental extended reporting endorsement may be available subject to policy terms and conditions. You must request the extended reporting period in writing to the carrier within ([Days To Extend])days of the expiration date. The cost of this extended reporting period is[Percent Cost]%of the annual premium and is fully earned. The extended reporting period extends only to those claims that occurred prior to the expiration date and would have been covered by the policy. Claims must be reported to the carrier within ([Days To Report])days of the end of the policy period. The extended reporting period does not increase the limits of liability and is subject to all policy terms,conditions and exclusions. Definition of Claim: DESCRIPTION Refer to attached policy form Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc, 46 City of Temecula Program Details (Cont.) Incident or Claim Reporting Provision: DESCRIPTION Refer to attached policy form Extended Reporting Period (ERP)Options*: DESCRIPTION • DATE 11111112IOL01'. Refer to attached policy form *If ERP coverage is desired, then that request must be in writing to the carrier. Endorsements include, but are not limited to: DESCRIPTION SRP General Terms and Conditions(Countrywide)(12/13) 101013 12/13 Cyber Extortion Coverage Section(12/13) 101017 12/13 Event Management Coverage Section (12/13) 101018 12/13 Security And Privacy Coverage Section(12/13) 101024 12/13 CyberEdge Loss Prevention Services Endorsement 113428 02/14 Cancellation Amendatory 101036 04/09 Choice of Panel Counsel Endorsement 103452 11/09 Notice of Claim (Reporting By E-Mail)99758 08/08 Retention Amendatory Endorsement 105565 05/10 Criminal Reward Coverage Extension 105567 05/10 Subsidiary Threshold Amendatory Endorsement 101641 12/13 PCI-DSS Assessment Deletion Endorsement 115988 12/13 CA Cancellation/Non-Renewal Endorsement CA Punitive Damages Law Endorsement Economic Sanctions Endorsement 89644 06/13 Forms Index Endorsement 78859 10/01 Premium $10,988 Minus 12.5%Commission Refund ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $9,614.50 ($9615.00) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 47 City of Temecula Premium Summary The estimated program cost for the options are outlined in the following table: PROGRAMr, - EXPIRING -•-• PROGRAM LINE OF •VERAGE CARRIER EXPIRING COSTJO CARRIER ESTIMATED COST Municipal Liability Premium Allied World Insurance $140,101.00 Allied World Insurance $106,192.00 Estimated Cost Company(Allied World $140,101.00 Company(Allied World $106,192.00 Annualized Cost Assurance Group) Assurance Group) N/A TRIA Premium Municipal Liability Premium AIX Specialty Insurance Co. $130,000.00 Estimated Cost $134,160.00 Annualized Cost $3,900.00 TRIA Premium N/A Surplus Lines Tax/ $260.00 Fee Umbrella Premium Included in Municipal Liability - Allied World Insurance $33,937.00 Estimated Cost Premium above. - Company(Allied World $33,937.00 Annualized Cost - Assurance Group) N/A TRIA Premium - $973.00 Workers Comp Premium New York Marine And $56,643.00 New York Marine And $48,263.00 Estimated Cost General Insurance Company $56,643.00 General Insurance Company $48,263.00 Annualized Cost (ProSight Specialty Group) (ProSight Specialty Group) N/A TRIA Premium Included Property Premium Zurich American Insurance $89,069.00 Zurich American Insurance $88,053.00 Estimated Cost Company(Zurich Insurance $89,069.00 Company(Zurich Insurance $90,354.00 Annualized Cost Group Ltd) Group Ltd) N/A Engineering Fee $2312.10- Property Premium N/A - American Home Assurance $85,303.00 Total Fees - Company(American $4,500.00 Estimated Cost - International Group, Inc) $89,803.00 Annualized Cost - N/A TRIA Premium - $3,446.00 Difference in Conditions Primary Premium $123,878.18 Empire Indemnity Insurance $124,800.00 $10M Estimated Cost $123,878.18 Company(Zurich Insurance $250.48 Annualized Cost N/A Group Ltd) $3,757.20 TRIA Premium $240.00 $200.00 $129,247.68 $62,400.00 Difference in Conditions $25M xs Premium Princeton Excess& Surplus $76,766.35 $60,000.00 $10M Taxes Lines Ins Co. $76,766.35 Ironshore Europe Limited $1,818.00 Srchrg &Asmnt Hiscox Insurance Co. Ironshore Insurance Ltd. $600.00 Arthur].Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 48 City of Temecula Premium Summary (Cont.) EXPIRING PROGRAM PROPOSED PROGRAM LINE OF •VERAGE CARRIER EXPIRING COST CARRIER ESTIMATED COST Total Fees Ironshore Europe ltd. QBE Specialty Insurance $121.20 Estimated Cost Hudson Specialty Ins Co. Company(QBE Insurance $62,539.20 Annualized Cost General Security Indemnity Group) N/A TRIA Premium Co of AZ. Ironshore Insurance Ltd TRIA-$30,000.00 (Ironshore Insurance Ltd) General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Auto Physical Damage Premium Hanover Insurance Company $7495.00 Hanover Insurance Company $6,912.00 Estimated Cost (Hanover Insurance $7495.00 (Hanover Insurance $7102.00 Annualized Cost Companies) Companies) N/A TRIA Premium $190.00 Crime Premium $4122.00 Hanover Insurance Company $2,832.00 Estimated Cost $4122.00 (Hanover Insurance $2,832.00 Annualized Cost Companies) N/A TRIA Premium - Cyber Liability Premium BCS Insurance Company $11,876.36 BCS Insurance Company $18,073.00 Estimated Cost (BCS Insurance Company) $11,876.36 (BCS Insurance Company) $18,073.00 Annualized Cost - TRIA Premium - Cyber Liability Premium National Union Fire Ins. Co of $9614.50 Estimated Cost Pittsburgh, PA(AIG) $9614.50 Annualized Cost TRIA Premium Quote from Hanover Insurance Company(Hanover Insurance Companies)is valid until 6/30/2016 Quote from Allied World Insurance Company(Allied World Assurance Group)is valid until 6/30/2016 Quote from Zurich American Insurance Company(Zurich Insurance Group Ltd)is valid until 6/30/2016 Quote from Hudson Specialty Insurance Company(Fairfax Financial(USA)Group),etc...is valid until 711/2016 Quote from New York Marine And General Insurance Company(ProSight Specialty Group)is valid until 6/30/2016 Quote from Hanover Insurance Company(Hanover Insurance Companies)is valid until XX/XX/XXXX Quote from BCS Insurance Company(BCS Insurance Company)is valid until 5/4/2016 Quote from Allied World Insurance Company(Allied World Assurance Group)is valid until 6/30/2016 Quote from Empire Indemnity Insurance Company(Zurich Insurance Group Ltd)is valid until 7/1/2016 Quote from American Home Assurance Company(American International Group,Inc)is valid until 6/30/2016 Arthur].Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 49 City of Temecula Premium Summary (Cont.) Gallagher is responsible for the placement of the following lines of coverage: Crime Municipal Liability Cyber Liability Umbrella Workers Comp Property It is understood that any other type of exposure/coverage is either self-insured or placed by another brokerage Difference in Conditions Primary$10M firm other than Gallagher.If you need help in placing other lines of coverage or covering other types of Difference in Conditions $25M xs$10M exposures,please contact your Gallagher representative. Auto Physical Damage This proposal of insurance features insurance policies which contain cancellation provisions to refund premium other than on a pro-rata basis for such occurrences including but not limited to non-payment of premium(short rate penalty provisions). At your request, we can detail the terms of such cancellation provisions. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 50 City of Temecula Payment Plans CARRIER LINE OF • •D Allied World Insurance Company(Allied World Municipal Liability Agency Bill Assurance Group) Allied World Insurance Company(Allied World Umbrella Agency Bill Assurance Group) New York Marine And General Insurance Workers Comp Agency Bill Company(ProSight Specialty Group) Zurich American Insurance Company Property Agency Bill (Zurich Insurance Group Ltd) American Home Assurance Company Property Agency Bill (American International Group, Inc) Empire Indemnity Insurance Company Difference in Conditions Agency Bill (Zurich Insurance Group Primary$10M Ltd) Hudson Specialty Insurance Company (Fairfax Financial (USA) Group) Ironshore Europe Limited(Ironshore Insurance Ltd.) QBE Specialty Insurance Company(QBE Difference in Conditions Agency Bill Insurance Group) $25M xs $10M Ironshore Insurance Ltd (Ironshore Insurance Ltd) General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Underwriters at Lloyd's, London) Hanover Insurance Company(Hanover Auto Physical Damage Agency Bill Insurance Companies) Hanover Insurance Company(Hanover Crime Agency Bill Insurance Companies) National Union Fire Insurance Company of Cyber Liability Agency Bill Pittsburgh, PA Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 51 City of Temecula Coinsurance Illustration Coinsurance Formula: Insurance Carried _ Insurance Required x Loss-Deductible=Settlement Example of Coinsurance formula applied to a hypothetical loss situation: Property Value = $1,000,000 Coinsurance Amount = 80% Deductible = $500 Insurance Required = $800,000 (80%of$1,000,000) Insurance Carried = $400,000 Loss Incurred = $200,000 Settlement determined by applying the coinsurance formula: $400,000 (Insurance Carried) x$200,000 (Loss)-$500 (Deductible)=$99,500 Settlement $800,000 (Insurance Required) Note: If the property in the above example is insured for the full insurance required ($800,000), the insured will recover$199,500. In the above example, the insured will suffer a $100,000 penalty for not being insured to the proper limit. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 52 City of Temecula Changes / Developments It is important that we be advised of any changes in your operations that may have a bearing on the validity and/or adequacy of your insurance. The types of changes that concern us include, but are not limited to, those listed below: 1. Changes in any operation such as expansion to other states or new products. 2. Mergers and/or acquisition of new companies. 3. Any newly assumed contractual liability, granting of indemnities, or hold harmless agreements. 4. Circumstances which may require increased liability insurance limits. 5. Any changes in fire or theft protection,such as the installation of or disconnection of sprinkler systems, burglar alarms, etc. This includes any alterations to same. 6. Immediate advice of any changes to scheduled equipment such as contractors' equipment, electronic data processing,etc. 7. Property of yours that is in transit, unless we have previously arranged for the insurance. 8. Any changes in existing premises including vacancy,whether temporary or permanent, alterations, demolition, etc.Also, any new premises either purchased, constructed, or occupied. ❑ No Changes and/or Developments Signature: Title: Date: Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 53 Proposal Disclosures City of Temecula Proposal Disclosures The following disclosures are hereby made a part of this proposal. Please review these disclosures prior to signing the Client Authorization to Bind or e-mail confirmation. Proposal IMPORTANT: The proposal is an outline of certain terms and conditions of the insurance proposed by Disclaimer the insurers, based on the information provided by your company. It does not include all the terms, coverages, exclusions, limitations and/or conditions of the actual policy contract language.The insurance policies themselves must be read for those details. Policy forms for your reference will be made available upon request. We will not be operating in a fiduciary capacity, but only as your broker, obtaining a variety of coverage terms and conditions to protect the risks of your enterprise. We will seek to bind those coverages based upon your authorization; however,we can make no warranties in respect to policy limits or coverage considerations of the carrier.Actual coverage is determined by policy language, so read all policies carefully. Contact us with questions on these or any other issues of concern. Compensation One of the core values highlighted in The Gallagher Way states, "We are an Open Society," and our Disclosure open society extends to the compensation Gallagher receives. In general, Gallagher may be compensated as follows: 1. Gallagher Companies are primarily compensated from the usual and customary commissions or fees received from the brokerage and servicing of insurance policies, annuity contracts,guarantee contracts and surety bonds(collectively"insurance coverages") handled for a client's account, which may vary from company to company and insurance coverage to insurance coverage. As permitted by law, Gallagher companies occasionally receive both commissions and fees. 2. In placing, renewing, consulting on or servicing your insurance coverages, Gallagher Companies may participate in contingent and supplemental commission arrangements with intermediaries and insurance companies. Contingent commissions provide for additional contingent compensation if underwriting, profitability, volume or retention goals are achieved. Such goals are typically based on the total amount of certain insurance coverages placed by Gallagher with the insurance company and/or through the intermediary, not on an individual policy basis. Some insurance markets, including Gallagher-owned intermediaries, have modified their commission schedule with Gallagher, resulting in an increase in some commission rates. These additional commissions, commonly referred to as"supplemental commissions" are known as of the effective date, but some insurance companies are paying this commission later and apart from when commission is normally paid at policy issuance. As a result, Gallagher may be considered to have an incentive to place your insurance coverages with a particular insurance company. Note: Upon request, your Gallagher representative can provide more specific market information regarding contingent and supplemental commission related to your insurance coverage. 3. Gallagher Companies may also receive investment income on fiduciary funds temporarily held by them,such as premiums or return premiums. 4. Gallagher Companies may access other facilities, including wholesalers, reinsurance intermediaries, captive managers, underwriting managers and others that act as intermediaries for both Gallagher and other brokers in the insurance marketplace. Gallagher Companies may own some of these facilities, in whole or in part. If such a facility was utilized in the placement of a client's account, the facility may have earned and retained customary brokerage commission or fees for its work. 5. Gallagher assists its customers in procuring premium finance quotes and unless prohibited by law may earn compensation for this value added service. 6. From time to time, Gallagher may participate in insurance company promotional events or training and development that insurers provide for Gallagher employees. 7. Gallagher strives to find appropriate coverage at a competitive price for our customers. In order to achieve these goals,we gather and analyze data about our customers and their insurance coverage. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 55 City of Temecula Proposal Disclosures (Cont.) This data and the resulting analytical tools help us better understand the current marketplace, more accurately predict future trends and offer tailored solutions to our customers. The data may also be provided to insurers pursuant to consulting service agreements from which we earn fees. If you have specific questions about the compensation received by Gallagher and its affiliates in relation to your insurance placements, please contact your Gallagher representative for more details. In the event you wish to register a formal complaint regarding compensation Gallagher receives from insurers or third parties, please send an e-mail to Compensation_Complaints@ajg.com or send a letter to: Compliance Officer Arthur J. Gallagher&Co. Two Pierce Place,20th Floor Itasca, IL 60143 TRIA/TRIPRA If this proposal contains options to purchase TRIA/TRIPRA coverage, the proposed TRIA/TRIPRA Disclaimer program may not cover all terrorism losses.While the amendments to TRIA eliminated the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terrorism, a number of lines of coverage excluded under the amendments passed in 2005 remain excluded including commercial automobile, burglary and theft insurance;surety insurance, farm owners multiple perils and professional liability(although directors and officers liability is specifically included). If such excluded coverages are required,we recommend that you consider purchasing a separate terrorism policy. Please note that a separate terrorism policy for these excluded coverages may be necessary to satisfy loan covenants or other contractual obligations. TRIPRA includes a$100 billion cap on insurers' aggregate liability. The TRIPRA program increases the amount needed in total losses by$20 million each calendar year before the TRIPRA program responds from the 2015 trigger of$100 million to$200 million by the year 2020. TRIPRA is set to expire on December 31, 2020. There is no certainty of extension, thus the coverage provided by your insurers may or may not extend beyond December 31, 2020. In the event you have loan covenants or other contractual obligations requiring that TRIA/TRIPRA be maintained throughout the duration of your policy period,we recommend that a separate"Stand Alone"terrorism policy be purchased to satisfy those obligations. Actuarial The information contained in this proposal is based on the historical loss experience and exposures Disclaimer provided to Arthur J. Gallagher&Co. Insurance Brokers of CA., Inc.. This proposal is not an actuarial study. Should you wish to have this proposal reviewed by an independent actuary,we will be pleased to provide you with a listing of actuaries for your use. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 56 City of Temecula Insurance Company Ratings and Admitted Status PROPOSED INSURANCE COMPANIES A.M. BEST'S .DNOW RATING ADMITTED AIX Specialty Insurance Company A XV Non-Admitted Allied World Insurance Company A XV Admitted American Home Assurance Company A XV Admitted BCS Insurance Company A-IX Admitted Empire Indemnity Insurance Company A+XV Non-Admitted General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona A XV Non-Admitted Hanover Insurance Company A XV Admitted Hudson Specialty Insurance Company A XV Non-Admitted Ironshore Europe Limited A XIV Admitted Ironshore Insurance Ltd A XIV Admitted New York Marine And General Insurance Company A IX Admitted QBE Specialty Insurance Company A XIV Non-Admitted Underwriters at Lloyd's, London A XV Non-Admitted Zurich American Insurance Company A+XV Admitted National Union Fire Insurance Co of Pittsburgh,PA A XV Admitted If the above indicated coverage is placed with a Non-Admitted Carrier,the carrier is doing business in the state as a surplus lines or non-admitted carrier.As such,this carrier is not subject to the same regulations which apply to an admitted carrier nor do they participate in any insurance guarantee fund applicable in that state. *The above A.M. Best Rating was verified on the date the proposal document was created. Guide to Best Ratings Rating Levels and Categories ' F i na n r is l .S12e Catego ries. 4++,A+ p=rior (W Z000 ofRepadedPdsticyhutders'^ res PLs Carmkianar Deserve Furmk) A.A, Excellent FSC I Up to 1.000 FSC IX 250,0))to50C.--- B++, E+ 2:01 F5C 11 1.000 to 2.000 FSC i4 =.p- =air FSeCIII 2,000 to 5,0)0 FSCA 750, -- - Marginal =sCIV 5.000 to 10.000 F.SC}UI t,00 :':'nk =.CV 10,0)Dto25,0)) FSCY%Ill z°. ::. .. d.. ... FSCVI 25.000 to 50.0)0 FSCXP.` v.: ::. ._2. U War Regulatory Supero is for FSC VI I 5),0d)to 10),00) FSC -.or more F In Liquidation FSC VIII 100,000 to 250,00) S Suspended Best's Insurance Reports,published annually by A.M.Best Company,Inc.,presents comprehensive reports on the financial position,history,and transactions of insurance companies operating in the United States and Canada.Companies licensed to do business in the United States are assigned a Best's Rating which attempts to measure the comparative position of the company or association against industry averages. A Best's Financial Strength Rating opinion addresses the relative ability of an insurer to meet its ongoing insurance obligations.It is not a warranty of a company's financial strength and ability to meet its obligations to policyholders.View the A.M.Best Important Notice: Best's Credit Ratings for a disclaimer notice and complete details at http://www.ambest.com/ratings/notice. Best's Credit Ratings are under continuous review and subject to change and/or affirmation.For the latest Best's Credit Ratings and Best Credit Reports(which include Best Ratings),visit the A.M.Best website at http://www.ambest.com.See Guide to Best's Credit Ratings for explanation of use and charges.Copies of the Best's Insurance Reports for carriers listed above are also available upon request of your Gallagher representative. Best's Credit Ratings reproduced herein appear under license from A.M.Best and do not constitute,either expressly or impliedly,an endorsement of (Licensee's publication or service)or its recommendations,formulas,criteria or comparisons to any other ratings,rating scales or rating organizations which are published or referenced herein.A.M.Best is not responsible for transcription errors made in presenting Best's Credit Ratings.Best's Credit Ratings are proprietary and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of A.M.Best Company. Gallagher companies use A.M.Best Company's rating services to evaluate the financial condition of insurers whose policies we propose to deliver. Gallagher companies make no representations and warranties concerning the solvency of any carrier,nor does it make any representation or warranty concerning the rating of the carrier which may change. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 57 City of Temecula Insurance Company Ratings and Admitted Status (Cont.) GUIDE TO BEST'S FINANCIAL STRENGTH RATINGS A Rest's Financial Strength Rating is an independent opinion of an insurer's financial strength and ability to meet its ongoing insurance policy and contract obligations.The rating is based on a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a company's balance sheet strength,operating performance and business profile. Best's Financial Strength Ratings Rating Descriptor Definition A++,A+ Superior Assigned to companies that have,in our opinion,a superior ability to meet their ongoing insurance obli- gations. v A,A- Excellent Assigned to companies that have.in our opinion.an excellent ability to meet their ongoing insurance d obligations. V) Assigned to companies that have,in our opinion,a good ability to meet their ongoing insurance obliga- B++,B+ Good tions. B,B- Fair Assigned to companies that have,in our opinion,a fair ability to meet their ongoing insurance obliga- tions.Financial strength is vulnerable to adverse changes in underwriting and economic conditions. G++,C+ Marginal Assigned to companies that have,in our opinion,a marginal ability to meet their ongoing insurance obli- gations.Financial strength is vulnerable to adverse changes in underwriting and economic conditions. Assigned to companies that have,in our opinion,a weak ability to meet their ongoing insurance obliga- ` C,C- Weak tions.Financial strength is very vulnerable to adverse changes in underwriting and economic conditions. m Assigned to companies that have,in our opinion,a poor ability to meet their ongoing insurance obliga- �s D Poor tions.Financial strength is extremely vulnerable to adverse changes in underwriting and economic con- ditions. Under Assigned to companies{and possibly their subsi(liaries/affiliates)placed under a significant form of E Regulatory regulatory supervision,control or restraint-including cease and desist orders,conservatorship or reha- Supervision bilitation,but not liquidation-that prevents conduct of normal,ongoing insurance operations. F In Liquidation Assigned to companies placed in liquidation by a court of law or by a forced liquidation. Assigned to rated companies when sudden and significant events impact operations and rating implica- S Suspended tions cannot be evaluated due to a lack of timely or adequate information;or in cases where continued maintenance of the previously published rating opinion is in violation of evolving regulatory require- ments. Rating Modifiers Modifier Descriptor Definition uUnder Review Indicates the rating may change in the near term,typically within six months.Generally is event driven,with positive,negative or developing implications. pd public Data Indicates rating assigned to insurer that chose not to participate in A.M.Best's interactive rating process. _ Discontinued in20f0 s Syndicate Indicates rating assigned to a Lloyd's syndicate. Rating Outlooks Indicates potential direction of a Rest's Financial Strength Rating over an intermediate term,generally defined as 12 to 36 months. Positive Indicates possible rating upgrade due to favorable financial/market trends relative to the current rating level. Negative Indicates possible rating downgrade due to unfavorable financial/market trends relative to the current rating level. Stable I Indicates low likelihood of a rating change due to stable financial/market trends. Under Review Implications Indicates the potential direction of a Rest's Financial Strength Rating that is in Under Review status based on information currently available. Positive Indicates there is a reasonable likelihood the company's rating will be raised as a result of A.M.Rest's analysis of a recent event. Negative Indicates there is a reasonable likelihood the company's rating will be lowered as a result of A.M.Best's analysis of a recent event. Developing Indicates there is uncertainty as to the final rating outcome,but there is a reasonable likelihood the company's rating will change as a result of A .Rest's analysis of a recent event. Not Rated Designation NR:Assigned to companies that are not rated by A.M.Best. Rating Disclosure A Best's Financial Strength Rating opinion addresses the relative ability of an insurer to meet its ongoing insurance obligations.The ratings are not assigned to specific insurance policies or contracts and do not address any other risk,including,but not limited to,an insurer's claims-payment policies or procedures;the ability of the insurer to dispute or deny claims payment on grounds of misrepresentation or fraud;or any specific liability contractually borne by the policy or contract holder.A Best's Financial Strength Rating is not a recommendation 10 purchase,holo or terminate any insurance policy,contract or any other financial obligation issued by an insurer,nor does it address the suitability of any particular policy or contract for a specific purpose or purchaser.In arriving at a rating decision,A.M.Best relies on third-party audited financial data and/or other information provided to it.While this information is believed to be reliable,A.M.Best does not independently verify the accuracy or reliability of the information. For additional details,see A.M.Best's Terms of Use at www.ambest.com. Best's Financial Strength Ratings are distributed via press release and/or the A.M.Rest website at www.ambGst.com and are published in the Credit Rating Actions section of Best's JournaiTm.Best's Financial Strength Ratings are proprietary and may not be reproduced without permission. Copyright @ 2014 by A.M.Best Company,Inc. Version 0130114 tllceEsrt Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 58 Client Signature Requirements NOTICE: 1. THE INSURANCE POLICY THAT YOU ARE APPLYING TO PURCHASE IS BEING ISSUED BY AN INSURER THAT IS NOT LICENSED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THESE COMPANIES ARE CALLED "NONADMITTED" OR "SURPLUS LINE" INSURERS. 2. THE INSURER IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT THAT APPLY TO CALIFORNIA LICENSED INSURERS. 3. THE INSURER DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE INSURANCE GUARANTEE FUNDS CREATED BY CALIFORNIA LAW. THEREFORE, THESE FUNDS WILL NOT PAY YOUR CLAIMS OR PROTECT YOUR ASSETS IF THE INSURER BECOMES INSOLVENT AND IS UNABLE TO MAKE PAYMENTS AS PROMISED. 4. THE INSURER SHOULD BE LICENSED EITHER AS A FOREIGN INSURER IN ANOTHER STATE IN THE UNITED STATES OR AS A NON- UNITED STATES (ALIEN) INSURER. YOU SHOULD ASK QUESTIONS OF YOUR INSURANCE AGENT, BROKER, OR "SURPLUS LINE" BROKER OR CONTACT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AT THE FOLLOWING TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1 -800-927-4357. ASK WHETHER OR NOT THE INSURER IS LICENSED AS A FOREIGN OR NON- UNITED STATES (ALIEN) INSURER AND FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE INSURER. YOU MAY ALSO CONTACT THE NAIC'S INTERNET WEB SITE AT WWW.NAIC.ORG. 5. FOREIGN INSURERS SHOULD BE LICENSED BY A STATE IN THE UNITED STATES AND YOU MAY CONTACT THAT STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT INSURER. 6. FOR NON-UNITED STATES (ALIEN) INSURERS, THE INSURER SHOULD BE LICENSED BY A COUNTRY OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES AND SHOULD BE ON THE NAIC'S INTERNATIONAL INSURERS DEPARTMENT (IID) LISTING OF APPROVED NONADMITTED NON-UNITED STATES INSURERS. ASK YOUR AGENT, BROKER, OR "SURPLUS LINE" BROKER TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT INSURER. 7. CALIFORNIA MAINTAINS A LIST OF APPROVED SURPLUS LINE INSURERS. ASK YOUR AGENT OR BROKER IF THE INSURER IS ON THAT LIST, OR VIEW THAT LIST AT THE INTERNET WEB SITE OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE: WWW.INSURANCE.CA.GOV. 8. IF YOU, AS THE APPLICANT, REQUIRED THAT THE INSURANCE POLICY YOU HAVE PURCHASED BE BOUND IMMEDIATELY, EITHER BECAUSE EXISTING COVERAGE WAS GOING TO LAPSE WITHIN TWO BUSINESS DAYS OR BECAUSE YOU WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE COVERAGE WITHIN TWO BUSINESS DAYS, AND YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THIS DISCLOSURE FORM AND A REQUEST FOR YOUR SIGNATURE UNTIL AFTER COVERAGE BECAME EFFECTIVE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS POLICY WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS DISCLOSURE. IF YOU CANCEL COVERAGE, THE PREMIUM WILL BE PRORATED AND ANY BROKER'S FEE CHARGED FOR THIS INSURANCE WILL BE RETURNED TO YOU. Date: Insured: D-1 (Effective July 21,2011) City of Temecula Client Authorization to Bind Coverage After careful consideration of Gallagher's proposal dated 6/10/2016,we accept the following coverage(s). Please check the desired coverage(s)and note any coverage amendments below: LINE OF • ❑Accept ❑Reject Municipal Liability&Excess Liability Allied World Insurance Company ❑Accept ❑Reject (Allied World Assurance Group) TRIA Coverage i ❑Accept El Reject Municipal Liability&Excess Liability AIX Specialty Insurance ❑Accept El Reject TRIA Coverage (Hanover Insurance Group) ❑Accept El Reject Umbrella Allied World Insurance Company ❑Accept El Reject TRIA Coverage (Allied World Assurance Group) ❑Accept El Reject Workers Comp New York Marine And General Insurance Company(ProSight TRIA Cannot be rejected TRIA Coverage Specialty Group) ❑Accept ❑Reject Property Zurich American Insurance Company(Zurich Insurance ❑Accept ❑Reject TRIA Coverage Group Ltd) ❑Accept ❑Reject Property American Home Assurance Company(American Included TRIA Coverage International Group, Inc) ❑Accept ❑Reject Difference in Conditions Primary Empire Indemnity Insurance $10M Company(Zurich Insurance ❑Accept ❑Reject TRIA Coverage Group Ltd) Ironshore Europe Limited (Ironshore Insurance Ltd.) QBE Specialty Insurance Company(QBE Insurance ❑Accept ❑Reject Difference in Conditions $25M Group) xs$10M Ironshore Insurance Ltd ❑Accept ❑Reject (Ironshore Insurance Ltd) TRIA Coverage General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Underwriters at Lloyd's, London) ❑Accept ❑Reject Package-Equipment Floater- Inland Marine Hanover Insurance Company ❑Accept ❑Reject (Hanover Insurance Companies) TRIA Coverage ❑Accept ❑Reject Package-Automobile Physical Damage Hanover Insurance Company ❑Accept ❑Reject TRIA Coverage (Hanover Insurance Companies) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 62 City of Temecula Client Authorization to Bind Coverage (Cont.) LINE OF COVERAGE CARRIER ❑Accept ❑Reject Crime Hanover Insurance Company ❑Accept ❑Reject TRIA Coverage (Hanover Insurance Companies) ❑Accept ❑Reject Cyber Liability BCS Insurance Company(BCS ❑Accept ❑Reject TRIA Coverage Insurance Company) Producer/ Client Initials Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 63 City of Temecula Client Authorization to Bind Coverage It is understood this proposal provides only a summary of the details;the policies will contain the actual coverages. We confirm the values, schedules, and other data contained in the proposal are from our records and acknowledge it is our responsibility to see that they are maintained accurately. We agree that your liability to us arising from your negligent acts or omissions, whether related to the insurance or surety placed pursuant to these binding instructions or not, shall not exceed $20 million, in the aggregate. Further, without limiting the foregoing,we agree that in the event you breach your obligations, you shall only be liable for actual damages we incur and that you shall not be liable for any indirect, consequential or punitive damages. By: Specify:owner,partner or corporate officer Print Name Date: Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 64 City of Temecula Additional Insured Certificates Agreement City of Temecula agrees and understands that in order for an Additional Insured endorsement and/or Waiver of Subrogation endorsement to apply, a written contract is required in accordance with the terms and conditions of its insurance policy. Coverage: Business Auto, General Liability,Workers Compensation Policy Period: 7/1/2016 to 7/1/2017 City of Temecula Insured Signature Date Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 65 City of Temecula so - 6 Arthur Next-Generation eRiskHub' The dangers of data breaches are far reaching,and the severity of them are being felt at all levels.You hear about the large ones like Anthem,Target and Sony,but in reality any organization that houses valuable information is a potential target from a range of vulnerabilities such as hackers to rogue employees.As an Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.client,you will receive complimentary access to the Gallagher eRiskHub;a dynamic cyber risk management tool that can help your organization be more proactive in assessing your cyber risk posture. All Gallagher clients have access to the Gallagher eRiskHub,and if you have not registered for access we recommend you do so today. To access the Gallagher eRiskHub now: �r _'M 1.Navigate to https://eriskhub.com/gailagher 4``j j , 2.Complete the new user registration at the bottom of the page.You pick your own user ID and a� password. The access code is 08167 "� f2 -•, 4 4 3.After registering,you can access the hub immediately using your newly created credentials in the member login box located in the top right of the page. Key Features of the Gallagher eRiskHub: • Gallagher Cyber Risk Due Diligence—A six-step process designed to walk our clients through a simple thought-provoking framework to encourage organizational communication,establish clear direction,and highlight priorities to better understand your cyber risk profile. • Security&Privacy Training—An overview of best practices for creating an effective security training program for your employees. • News Center—Keep up to date on what is going on in the world of cyber risk through handpicked articles,feeds and blogs. • Learning Center—An extensive collection of white papers,articles,webinars,videos and blog posts on a variety of topics. Looking for something specific?Try the search box in the top right of the page to search the entire Gallagher eRiskHub. Risk Manager Tools—A collection of tools with many different purposes such as researching known breach events,calculating your potential cost of a breach event and downloading free sample policies your organization can use as templates.Stay tuned as our next blog post will be a deep dive into this section! • eRisk Resources—Information on third-party vendors that can assist your municipality with improving your overall cyber risk. If you have any questions about the Gallagher eRiskHub,please reach out to Adam Cottini at adatn_cottini@ajg.cotn or the eRiskHub support staff at support@eriskhub.cotn. Arthur J. Gallagher& Co. Gallagher CyberLiability Adam Cottini 250 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York,NY i 177 CO212.994-7048 Gallagher Cyber Liability Practice 2016 Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.All rights reserved. IGBSD29393C City of Temecula Claims Reporting Direct Reporting Immediately report all claims to Arthur J Gallagher. Claims-sf@ajg.com Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 68 City of Temecula Bindable Quotations & Compensation Disclosure Schedule Client Name: City of Temecula WHOLESALER, OR INTERMEDIARY EST. ANNUAL COMM.% COMM.% OWNED? • OR FEE 2 NAME 3 OR • Municipal Liability AIX Specialty Insurance Co. $134,160.00 0% Risk Placement 11.5% Yes Services, Inc. Municipal Liability Allied World Insurance Company(Allied World $94,423.00 0% N/A Assurance Group) Umbrella Allied World Insurance Company(Allied World $140,128.00 0% N/A Assurance Group) Workers Comp New York Marine And General Insurance $48,263.00 0% N/A Company(ProSight Specialty Group) Property Zurich American Insurance Company(Zurich $88,053.00 0% N/A Insurance Group Ltd) Property American Home Assurance Company $85,303.00 0% N/A (American International Group, Inc) Difference in Conditions Empire Indemnity Insurance Company(Zurich $124,800.00 0% Swett&Crawford No Primary$10M Insurance Group Ltd) Hudson Specialty Insurance Company(Fairfax Financial (USA)Group) Ironshore Europe Limited (Ironshore Insurance Ltd.) Difference in Conditions QBE Specialty Insurance Company(QBE $25M xs$10M Insurance Group) $60,000.00 0% Swett&Crawford No Ironshore Insurance Ltd (Ironshore Insurance Ltd) General Security Indemnity Co of Arizona Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Underwriters at Lloyd's, London) Auto Physical Damage Hanover Insurance Company(Hanover $6,912.00 0% N/A Insurance Companies) Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 69 City of Temecula Bindable Quotations & Compensation Disclosure Schedule (Cont.) WHOLESALER, MGA OR INTERMEDIARY COVERAGE(S) CARRIER NAME(S) PREMIUM 1 OR FEE 2 NAME 3 OFEE 4 YES/NO R Hanover Insurance Company(Hanover $2,832.00 0% N/A Insurance Companies) Cyber Liability BCS Insurance Company(BCS Insurance $18,073.00 0% Risk Placement 7,5% Yes Company) Services Cyber Liability Illinois National Insurance Company $9614.50 0% - Some carriers pay Gallagher supplemental or contingent commissions in addition to the policy commission. Contingent commissions are typically contingent upon performance factors such as growth, profit, volume or retention, while supplemental commissions are not. These supplemental or contingent commissions may range from less than 1% up to 10%of the policy premium. Please refer to the Compensation Disclosure or contact your Gallagher representative for additional information. 1 'A verbal quotation was received from this carrier.We are awaiting a quotation in writing. The premium indicated is an estimate provided by the market.The actual premium and acceptance of the coverage requested will be determined by the market after a thorough review of the completed application. "A written quotation was received from this carrier. The premium indicated is an estimate provided by the market.The actual premium and acceptance of the coverage requested will be determined by the market after a thorough review of the completed application. 2 The commission rate is a percentage of annual premium excluding taxes&fees. Gallagher is receiving %commission on this policy.The fee due Gallagher will be reduced by the amount of the commissions received. 3 We were able to obtain more advantageous terms and conditions for you through an intermediary/wholesaler. 4'The non-Gallagher intermediary/wholesaler did not provide their compensation information for this proposal.The usual and customary compensation to a wholesaler/intermediary ranges from 5%to 12%, but we cannot verify that range is applicable in connection with this proposal. Arthur J.Gallagher&Co.Insurance Brokers of CA.,Inc. 70 Item No . 11 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Community Development Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with Esgil Corporation for Plan Check Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Theresa Harris, Development Processing Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Agreement with Esgil Corporation, in the amount of$200,000, for Plan Check Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. BACKGROUND: To assist with the high volume of permit applications the City processes, Building and Safety contracts outside plan review consulting services with Esgil Corporation. Plan review services include accurate code interpretation, review of construction plans for all applicable code disciplines, and identification of areas of noncompliance. Using an outside consultant allows the City to provide high quality customer service, and efficient turnaround time. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. Plan check services are paid for by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ESGIL CORPORATION PLAN REVIEW SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of June 28, 2016, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Esgil, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). 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, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PREVAILING WAGES Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Agreement from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at http://www.dir.ca.gov. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Agreement. This project, work, or service will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DI R) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4. 5. REGISTRATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Registration with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) is mandatory as a condition for bidding, providing certain services, and working on a public works project as specified in Labor Code Section 1771.1(a). Contractor and any subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations to be qualified to bid, or provide a proposal and/or time and material quote or be listed in a bid, proposal or quote, subject to the requirements of Public Contract Code Section 4104; or engage in the performance of any contract that is subject to Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. Contractor and subcontractors will be required to provide proof of registration with the DIR. For more information regarding registration with the Department of Industrial Relations, refer to http://www.dir.ca.gov/Public-Works/PublicWorks.html 6. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars and no cents ($200,000.00) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. C. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 7. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 10. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 11. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 13. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 14. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 15. 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. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: Esgil Corporation Attn: Kurt Culver 9320 Chesapeake Drive, suite 208 San Diego, CA 92123 16. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 17. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 18. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 19. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub-contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 21. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Esgil Corporation (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Kurt Culver, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Chuck Mendenhall, Vice-President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Esgil Corporation Attn: Kurt Culver 9320 Chesapeake Drive, suite 208 San Diego, CA 92123 858-560-1468 Phone 858-560-1576 Fax KCulver@Esgil.com PM Initials:` Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed The specific elements (scope of work) of this service include: PLAN REVIEW SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK 1. Plan pickup and delivery should be done within 24 hours after receiving notice from the City at the expense of the Consultant. 2. Perform complete plan review of submitted plans to determine compliance with adopted codes (listed below) including any amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code: California Building Code (CBC) California Plumbing Code (CPC) California Mechanical Code (CMC) California Fire Code (CFC) California Residential Code (CRC) 2008 California Building Energy Efficient Standards (CBES) Energy Conservation Disabled Access 3. Consultant shall provide plan correction lists to the City who will provide them to the applicant. 4. Consultant shall not receive or distribute plans directly to the applicant without prior authorization from the City. 5. Plan Review turn-around times shall be no more than 10-12 business days for new submittals and 5-7 business days for re-submittals. 6. Perform all necessary liaison with the applicant's designee, by telephone, fax, mail, e- mail or meeting in Consultant's main office, and perform all necessary rechecks to achieve conformance to the regulations. 7. Perform all necessary liaison with the Building Official or his designee, by mail, e-mail, telephone, fax or in Consultant's main office regarding any discretionary code issues. 8. Perform plan review of revisions to plans that have previously been approved for permit issuance charged hourly based on the Consultants approved rate schedule (see Exhibit B Payment Rates and Schedule). 9. Perform extra work when requested in writing by the City including accelerated plan review on an as-needed basis. 10. Attend meetings related to proposed building projects at the request of the Building Official at locations other than Consultant's office. EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule COMPENSATION FOR PLAN REVIEW SERVICES 1. The compensation paid by the City to the Consultant for each plan review shall be 60% of the "Plan Check Fee" collected by the City. The single fee includes all rechecks, plan check conferences at Consultant's office, reviewing plans that are initially found to be incomplete and for the transmitting of plans back to the jurisdiction. 2. Compensation for revisions shall be calculated either the same as the percentage of plan review fee or shall be based on Consultant's current Labor Rates Schedule*. The method of calculating compensation for each such plan reviewed shall be as agreed to by the Building Official and Consultant. 3. Compensation for work performed accelerated, extra work and meetings shall be based on the attached Consultant's Labor Rates Schedule as modified each year. ESGIL CORPORATION HOURLY RATES Supervising Structural Engineer $135.00 Structural Engineer $120.00 Civil Engineer $105.00 Electrical Engineer $105.00 Mechanical Engineer $105.00 Certified Access Specialist $105.00 I.C.C. Plans Examiner $86.00 Building Inspector $83.00 Note Labor rates are only used when requested by our clients, where a Building Plan Check Fee is not applicable. Item No . 12 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Community Development Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with Blanca Y. Price for Landscape Plan Check and Inspection Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Theresa Harris, Development Processing Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a Consulting Services Agreement with Blanca Y. Price, in the amount of $150,000, to perform Landscape Plan Check and Inspection Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. BACKGROUND: The Community Development Department's Planning Division utilizes the services of a landscape architectural firm to provide plan check and inspection services. Planning requires the services of a licensed landscape architect for their expertise in appropriate plant types to be used in our climatic region, calculation of project site landscape water budget, and irrigation system design. The licensed landscape architect also performs inspections of irrigation line installation, pressure testing of the irrigation system, irrigation head coverage, and plant installation. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. Landscape plan check fees are paid by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND BLANCA Y. PRICE LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of June 28, 2016, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Blanca Y. Price, a Sole Proprietor (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). 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, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and no cents ($150,000.00) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. C. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Consultant employs any employees. Consultant warrants and represents to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency that it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. 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. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: Blanca Y. Price PO Box 1494 Temecula, CA 92593 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its 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. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub-contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Blanca Y. Price (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Blanca Y. Price, Owner ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Blanca Y. Price PO Box 1494 Temecula, CA 92593 951.837.3432 blancaypriceft- mail.com PM Initials- Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed The specific elements (scope of work) of this service include: There are two stages of plan checks that are anticipated. The first series of plan checks will occur at the Development Review Committee (DRC) stage. The second series of plan checks will occur when the applicant submits construction drawings for the landscaping based on conceptual plan approval and conditions of approval formulated by staff and the Planning Commission. Three landscape inspections will be performed on site. The first is to verify that all irrigation has been installed according to plans and specifications. The second is to verify that the planting and irrigation have been installed and running according to plans and specifications. The third is a bond release inspection which occurs no less than a year from the final approval of the project installation. Development Review Committee Review — Plans submitted by the applicant at this stage are conceptual. 1. The Consultant will pick up the plans at the City two times per week (preferably on Monday and Thursday). Two sets of landscape plans along with one copy of the conceptual grading plan, architectural site plan and architectural elevations will be made available to the Consultant to assure that landscaping is compatible with the architecture and appropriate for the proposed grading. 2. The Consultant may be required to meet with the project planner to discuss the project or visit the site prior to beginning the review. This option will be left up to the individual planner. 3. The Consultant will review the plans to verify consistency with the City Development Code, other Ordinances and the Citywide Design Guidelines. A site visit may be necessary to become familiar with the site and surrounding area. Two sets of plans will be redlined with comments notifying the applicant of necessary revisions to bring the plans into conformance with the City requirements. One redlined plan set is for the Consultant's reference. Items not addressed in the City Development Code or applicable Ordinances but that are outside of professional norms will also be marked for explanations from the applicant. Plans will be cross-checked against the architectural and grading plans. 4. The Consultant will return one set of the redlined plans along with plan check comments to the project planner within fourteen days of receipt of the first submittal and seven days for the second and third submittal. On projects that have been authorized by the Director of Community Development an expedited review, Consultant will complete conceptual review within four calendar days. Plan Check comments will also be sent to the project planner via e-mail for use by the City. One set of plans will be kept on file at the Consultant's office so that if questions arise from either the project planner or the applicant, the Consultant, with full knowledge of the project, can provide answers. 5. Once the applicant has resubmitted revisions, the Consultant will pick up the plans at the City and re-check them for conformance. Should all revisions have been made and all questions answered, the plans will be returned to the project planner with a letter recommending approval. If all revisions are not made, one set of plans will be redlined again and returned to the applicant for revisions. Conceptual Landscape Plans that have been substantially changed from the original submittal may be subject to an additional fee. Construction Documents Review 1. The Consultant will pick up plans at the City two times per week (preferably on Monday and Thursday). Two sets of landscape construction plans, one copy of the approved conceptual landscape plan, conditions of approval and final precise grading plan will be made available to the Consultant to verify consistency with City Development Code, other Ordinances, and Citywide Design Guidelines. Two sets of landscape construction plans will be redlined with comments notifying the applicant of necessary revisions to be made to bring the plans into conformance with City requirements. Items not addressed in the City Development Code or applicable Ordinances but that are outside of professional norms will also be marked for explanations from the applicant. Plans will be cross-checked against the final precise grading plans. 2. The Consultant will return one set of redlined plans along with plan check comments to the project planner. Plan check comments will also be sent to the planner via e-mail. Comments/redlines shall be returned to the planner within two weeks after notification of plan pick up. Comments shall also be broken up into groups. The first group of comments addresses landscape issues related directly to the landscape architect. The second group of comments addresses landscape issues as they relate to site planning or grading issues. Comment shall be both in digital (e-mail) and hard copy format. One set of plans will be kept on file at the Consultant's office so that if questions arise from either the project planner or the applicant, the Consultant, with full knowledge of the project, can provide answers. 3. Once the applicant has resubmitted revisions, the Consultant will pick up the plans at the City and re-check them for conformance. Should all revisions have been made and all questions answered, the plans will be returned to the project planner with a letter recommending approval. If all revisions are not made, one set of plans will be redlined again and returned a second time for revisions. This process will continue until plans are brought into conformance with City standards, professional norms, and approved landscape plans. Plan checks beyond the third check will be subject to an additional per sheet fee. 4. The Consultant will review the cost estimate and notify the project planner that the estimate is appropriate for bonding requirements. Landscape Inspection Three landscape inspections will be performed for projects. The first landscape inspection will include a pressure test (where applicable) and verification that installation of irrigation meets conformance to plans and specifications. The second inspection will be performed once the landscaping installation is complete to assure irrigation coverage and installation of plant material according to plans and specifications. A third inspection will occur for bond release at one year from final approval of landscape. A written report will be provided to the project planner after each inspection indicating the status, if desired by the project planner. The Consultant will send a copy of the report to the applicant/contractor so that they will know which items need correction or completion. Each landscape inspection will be billed at the agreed upon rate, as demonstrated in Exhibit B. Inspections will be completed in no more than three (3) working days after notification. It is the responsibility of the Consultant to confirm that the City has received payment from the applicant prior to scheduling inspections with the applicant. Failure to do so may result in delay of payment to the Consultant. Landscape Architectural Resources The Consultant shall be available to act as a resource for City staff responding to general questions or questions regarding specific projects. Should staff require additional landscape review services, the Consultant shall provide services based on a mutually agreed upon flat rate fee, found in Exhibit B. Attendance at Meetings The Consultant shall be available to attend Development Review Committee and Planning Commission meetings as requested by the City of Temecula Planning Staff based on an agreed upon fee in Exhibit B. Invoicing Invoicing for landscape plan check and inspection services performed is required to be submitted to the City on a monthly basis. Per the Agreement, Section 4c Payment, the invoice must to be received by the City no later than 15 days following the end of the billing period. EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule 1. Conceptual Plan Review Project Acreage Fee 0 - 5 acres $360 >5 - 10 acres $600 >10 - 20 acres $780 >20 - 50 acres $960 >50 acres $960 plus $20 per acre over 50 acres Multiple reviews will be covered under the initial conceptual review cost, unless substantial changes to the conceptual landscape plan have been made by the applicant that are not as a result of the comments from the Consultant. Additional conceptual reviews for plans that have been substantially altered will be billed at a new and separate flat fee of $100.00 per sheet. Plan checks beyond the third check shall be billed at a flat rate of$100.00 per sheet 2. Construction Plan Review The following fees are based on reviewing a maximum of three submittals from the applicant. Should additional reviews be necessary, they will be charged at the rate of$100.00 per sheet. Square Footage of Landscaping Flat Plan Check Fee 0 - 5,625 $720 5,625 - 22,500 $1,340 22,501 - 30,375 $1,650 30,376 - 37,125 $1,940 37,126 - 45,000 $2,270 45,001 - 56,250 $2,590 56,251 - 67,500 $2,920 67,501 - 78,750 $3,240 78,751 - 90,000 $3,560 90,000 & up $3,560 + .0075 for each s.f. above 90,001 s.f. Plan checks beyond the third check $100/sheet 3. Specific Plan Review Fee $600 4. Inspection Fees Single Family Detached $200 per unit (Includes bond release inspection) (Models and Typicals) All Other Landscape Plans (bond release inspection not included) (i.e. Multi-Family/Slopes/HOA/Commercial, etc.) • First Inspection - Irrigation Inspection • Second Inspection - Landscape and Irrigation Coverage Inspection Square Footage of Landscaping Inspection Fee Up to 5,000 $1,250 5,001 to 10,000 $1,500 10,001 to 20,000 $1,750 20,001 to 30,000 $2,000 30,001 to 40,000 $2,250 40,001 to 50,000 $2,500 Over 50,000 $2,500 + $250 for each additional 10,000 sf Additional inspection fees of$250 may occur if: 1. After the third inspection of the same area and type i.e. 3 irrigation inspections of the same area. 2. Phasing of projects into areas less than 10,000 square feet. 5. Bond Release Inspection $250 A landscape maintenance bond is required on projects to ensure continued maintenance of landscaping for a minimum of one year. At that time, an inspection is requested in order for the bond to be released. 6. Landscape Architectural Resource Attendance at Development Review Committee and Planning Commission meetings will be performed at the flat fee of $300.00/meeting. Should staff require additional landscape review services to be performed, not included within this scope of work; services will be charged at an hourly rate of$110.00. Item No . 13 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager (Sr CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with MDG Associates, Inc. for the Provision of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Administration Services PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Principal Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an Agreement with MDG Associates, Inc., in the amount of $80,600, plus 10% contingency, for a total agreement of $88,660, for the provision of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Administration Services. BACKGROUND: As experts in the field, MDG Associates, Inc. provides technical assistance for the administration and implementation of the CDBG program and work with City staff to determine project eligibility, monitor projects, and ensure compliance with all Federal, State, and local reporting requirements. MDG also completes the day to day requirements of the program including: • Preparing reports, such as the Annual Action Plan • Processing invoices and agreements • Preparation of environmental review forms for CDBG projects • Monitor CDBG related Capital Improvement Projects • Prepare and maintain files and contracts for CDBG funded activities • Work with staff to prepare funding plans for CDBG resources This agreement will enable MDG Associates to complete CDBG administration services for the fiscal year 2016-17. FISCAL IMPACT: There are sufficient funds to cover the costs of the amendment in CDBG and Affordable Housing budgets. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement with MDG Associates, Inc. AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG) ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR FY 2016-17 THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of June 28, 2016, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and MDG Associates, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). 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, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. a. Non-exclusive Agreement. Consultant recognizes and agrees that this agreement is for the purposes of establishing a contractual agreement between the City and Consultant for the non-exclusive procurement of temporary staffing services. Consultant acknowledges that the terms of this agreement are non-exclusive and that City reserves the right to purchase similar services from other Consultants at its discretion. b. Affordable Care Act ("ACA") Consultant agrees to comply with all provisions of the ACA applicable to Assigned Employees, including the employer shared responsibility provisions relating to the offer of "minimum essential coverage" to "full-time" employees (as those terms are defined in Code §4980H and related regulations) and the applicable employer information reporting provisions under Code §6055 and §6056 and related regulations. In addition to Consultant duties and responsibilities set forth in paragraph 1, Consultant, as the common law employer, has the right to physically inspect the work site and work processes; to review and address, unilaterally or in coordination with City, Assigned Employee work performance issues; and to enforce Consultant's employment policies relating to Assigned Employee conduct at the worksite. Although the parties intend that Consultant and not City be deemed the common law employer (within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 31.3401(c)-1(c)) of Assigned Employees and that such employees be deemed the common law employees of Consultant and not City, the parties nevertheless intend to satisfy the requirements of Treas. Reg. § 54.4980H-4(b)(2), under which an offer of group health plan coverage made by Consultant is treated as an offer of coverage by City for all purposes of Code § 4980H, provided that certain criteria are satisfied. Accordingly, City agrees to pay Consultant, in addition to the rates set forth in Exhibit A, an additional fee per month for each month during which an employee placed with City by Consultant is enrolled in group health plan health coverage offered by Consultant. Consultant shall be solely responsible for, and shall reimburse, indemnify, and hold harmless City (hereafter collectively referred to as "City Indemnity" for, any taxes, penalties, or other liabilities assessed against Consultant or City under Code §4980H with respect to Assigned Employees due to Contractor's failure to: i. Offer "minimum essential coverage" under an "eligible employer- sponsored plan" each within the meaning of Code §5000A(f)(1)(B); or ii. Offer coverage that is not "affordable" or fails to provide "minimum value," each within the meaning of Code §3613(c)(2)(C) and §4980H(b) and related regulations. Provided, however, that in no event shall City Indemnity extend to any taxes, penalties, or other liabilities under the under Code §4980H where such tax, penalty, or other liability results from the imposition of penalties under i. Code §4980H(a), as a result of the failure by City to make offers of minimum essential coverage to its employees under an eligible employer- sponsored plan, or ii. Code §4980H(b) as a result of City's making an offer of minimum essential coverage to its employees under an eligible employer- sponsored plan that is either unaffordable or fails to provide minimum value. If City is notified by any government entity of City's potential liability for any such taxes, penalties, or other liabilities relating to Assigned Employees, Contractor shall fully cooperate, at Consultant's reasonable expense, with City's efforts to object to or appeal any such determination of liability or potential liability. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed eighty thousand six hundred dollars ($ 80,600.00), plus 10% Contingency of eight thousand sixty dollars ($8,060.00) for a total Agreement amount of eighty eight thousand six hundred sixty dollars ($88,660.00) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work up to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement as approved by City Council. Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. C. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. 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. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: MDG Associates, Inc. Attn: Rudy Munoz 10722 Arrow Route Suite 822 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its 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. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub-contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Rudy Munoz, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Guadalupe Munoz, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT MDG Associates, Inc. Attn: Rudy Munoz 10722 Arrow Route Suite 822 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Initial L Date:Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed The specific elements (scope of work) of this service include: MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING The members of our consulting group proposed to provide CDBG Administration services include Mr. Rudy Munoz, President who will be overseeing the contract and will be available on an as needed basis to address any contract or staffing related issues. Mr. Munoz will be assisted by N. Dean Huseby, Senior Associate, a previous HUD CPD Representative from the Los Angeles Field Office who has over 30 years of experience at the municipal as well as the federal level. And finally, Mr. Frank Perez, Associate, will be assisting in most of the day-to-day implementation of the program. Rudy Mufloz,President-Mr. Rudy Muiioz has been providing community development consulting services to municipal agencies with MDG Associates since 1991. Mr. Munoz has more than 30 years of overall experience in the community development field, including grants management of federal, county, and local grants including those offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is responsible for assisting municipalities with all aspects of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME), Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) administration and implementation. Mr. Munoz focuses on strategic community investment, development of implementation tools to facilitate the management of programs,developing tools and conducting training for HUD individual and multiple grantees and in the development of Policies and Procedures for programs (HOME, CDBG, NSP) and activities funded under these programs (Housing Rehabilitation, Commercial Rehabilitation and Homebuyer Programs). His work in these areas includes 36 Consolidated Plans, over 200 Action Plans and CAPER's,and 12 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. Mr. Mui'foz has been providing IIUD grantees, through its Technical Assistance Program, Basically CDBG Program, Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR), and CPD Monitoruig training throughout the country in addition to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (training conducted in Spanish). Mr. Munoz is a Certified HOME Specialist (Regulations) and is a national technical assistance provider through HUD's OneCPD initiative. Mr. Munoz worked for a number of municipalities in Southern California in the Community Development field overseeing Planning, Code Enforcement, Grants Management, and Building Departments. Mr. Munoz received a Bachelor of Architecture fi-om California Polytechnic University in Pomona. N. Dean Huseby,Senior Associate-Mr. Dean Huseby recently joined MDG Associates, Inc.,and currently serves as a Senior Associate. With more than 30 years of experience in the planning and implementation of federal grants, both as a grantee and as a HUD CPD Representative, These include all of the programs offered by the U.S. Department of I lousing and Urban Development— Offrce of Community Planting and Development, Mr. Huseby will be assisting municipalities with all aspects of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) management. Mr. Iluseby's emphasis is on the day-to-day implementation of HUD CPD Programs and the development of systems to facilitate in the implementation of these programs. His prior work as a HUD CPD Representative provides additional insight into the areas of focus for tine HUD field office. These areas includes the development of Consolidated Plans, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and numerous program policy and procedure documents to facilitate the implementation of the housing and community development projects resulting from these plans. His responsibilities include the management and implementation of CPD programs for cities in Southern California. Mr. Huseby is a Certified I IOME Specialist (Regulations) and is a national technical assistance provider through HUD's OneCPD technical assistance initiative. Prior to joining MDG, Mr. Whited was a HUD CPD Representative with the Los Angeles Field Office where he managed one of the heaviest workloads in the Los Angeles field office. Oversaw one urban county and eight metropolitan cities, including the City of San Diego in the areas of CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA totaling approximately$30 million in grant funds. In addition, responsibilities included the oversight of 20 Continuum of Care(CoC)grants totaling approximately $10 million and assisted in the oversight of the early phases of the NSP Program. Frank Perez,Associate-Mr. Frank Perez joined MDG Associates,Inc.in 2011 and currently serves as an associate on the Housing and Conununity Development team. With more than four(4)years of experience in the planning and implementation of federal grants including those offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development—Office of Conununity Planning and Development (CPD), Mr. Perez assists municipalities with all aspects of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) administration and implementation. Mr. Perez focuses on the day-to-day aspects of CPU program administration and compliance, including Consolidated Plan and Action Plan development and implementation, Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) functionality and management, labor standards enforcement,subrecipient management,monitoring,and capacity building,compliance with federal reporting requirements including the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), and all other aspects of program administration, implementation and compliance. in the administration and implementation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)CDBG entitlement grant program,MDG proposes to provide staffing and other resources as required to perform the scope of work requested by the City. 1. CDBG Program Implementation and Administration Provide staffing and other resources as required to perform the following for all approved City CDBG projects: a. Provide technical assistance for the administration and implementation of the City's CDBG funded Programs. Work with City staff to determine project eligibility along with monitoring of programs to assure compliance with all Federal, State, and Local reporting requirements. b. Prepare reports,as required by HUD, including, but not limited to,a One-Year Action Plan and Annual Funding application, annual performance report (CAPER), Quarterly Cash Transaction Reports, etc. C. Setup and maintenance of IDIS records, including preparation of requested reports. Prepare draw down requests for reimbursement of expended funds on a quarterly basis oras directed. d. Coordinate with HUD field office staff and other City representatives on CDBG related issues as needed and provide assistance for all program monitoring and audit preparation. e. Work with City staff to prepare funding plans for CDBG funded activities. E Prepare and maintain files and contracts for CDBG funded activities. g. Coordinate with City staff in the identification, management, and completion of all CDBG funded projects,including preparation and review of federal finding requirements as part of construction bid packages, requests for proposals, monitoring repoils, public notices,etc. h. Revicw and process all CDBG funded Capital Improvement project invoices. i. Monitor all Capital Improvement projects during construction for Davis-Bacon labor compliance and Section 3 compliance. j. Review completed projects for all necessary compliance issues. k. Preparation of necessary Environmental Review forms and documents for CDBG projects. 1. Provide regularly scheduled office hours at City Hall, on days and hours as determined by City staff. Additionally,remain available on-site,as needed,during HUD monitoring visits and external City audits. in. Any such other activities as required to properly administer the program. n. Attend City Council meetings as required. 2. Administration of Sub-Recipient Contracts a. Prepare of NOFA on an annual basis for social services finding. Work with City staff to prepare a funding plan for the recommended social service providers. b. Prepare files and contracts for each of the ftmded social service and fair housing administration providers. c. Process all sub-recipients invoices. d. Monitor all sub-recipients on an annual basis or sooner as necessary. MDG implements a team approach for the administration of the HUD entitlement grant programs. This approach allows us to control costs to the City by having lower level staff complete tasks that do not require higher level staff member to complete. This team approach also allows us to assign individuals with expertise in certain areas to complete those tasks. MDG proposes to provide service on-site and at its home office as required by the City. Based on prior experience,we propose to be in attendance at City Hall typically one day per week or as needed to properly administer the program. The balance of the services provided will be performed at out- corporate urcorporate office in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We anticipate becoming an extension of City staff and would provide flexible scheduling which meets the needs of the Community Development Department. We will make ourselves available to attend meetings as requested by staff. Additionally, we will provide accessibility during non-scheduled hours should the need arise, by providing staff with our cell phone numbers. EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule We propose to perform the services related to the general administration of the CDBG program, administration of sub-recipient contracts and Davis-Bacon compliance on an hourly basis in accordance with the rate schedule below. Based on our experience,we anticipate having one Senior Associate (Dean Huseby) provide 10 hours of service weekly with an Associate (Frank Perez) provide an additional 10 hours of service weekly. We proposed to have Mr. Perez in attendance on-site one day per week to complete all of the file management, reporting and invoice processing functions. Mr. Huseby would be in attendance as necessary (typically 2 times per month) to go over all the higher level administrative needs. Additional subject matter expert staff members would be available to the City as requested. This would include Labor Compliance, Section 3, IDIS,and environmental experts that would assist as necessary. SCHEDULE OF HOURLY BILLING RATES Rates effective as ofdanita y 1, 2015 STAFF PERSON: HOURLY RATE: President $1 10.00/1-Ir. Senior Vice-President $105.00/11r. Vice-President $100.00/Hr. Manager $ 95.00/Hr. Senior Associate $ 85.00/Hr. Associate $ 70.00/1-ir. Senior Project Assistant $ 55.00/1 IT. Project Assistant $ 50.00/Ulr. Secretary $ 40.00/Hr. REIMBURSABLE ITEMS: Project Supplies At Cost plus 10%surcharge Prints/Reproductions At Cost plus 10% surcharge The hourly rates and not to exceed price is inclusive of travel expenses and reproductions of typical program documents. Specialty prints, reproductions or supplies will be billed at cost plus 10%. Item No . 14 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chicago Title Company for Title and Escrow Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Judith M. McNabb, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Chicago Title Company, in the amount of $30,000, to provide annual Title and Escrow Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2014, the City entered into an Agreement with Chicago Title for title and escrow services. Consultant must submit a scope and cost proposal for each service requested and funds are allocated from the corresponding CIP project budget. The Consultant has responded in a timely manner when requested, provided an economical means of completing the necessary work, and performed satisfactorily. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under this Agreement, unless otherwise directed by the City Manager or City Council. The original agreement allows for multiple extensions for continued services; therefore, staff is recommending an agreement extension for this Consultant. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds have been appropriated in the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects Division, Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget. Individual service requests are funded by the various funding sources approved for each project ATTACHMENT: Second Amendment SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY TITLE AND ESCROW SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Chicago Title Company, a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2014, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$30,000. b. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into the First Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2016, and increase the payment in the amount of $30,000. C. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of$30,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: "This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 4 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit A, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit A, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The Second Amendment amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000), for additional Title and Escrow Services, for a total Agreement amount of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000). 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Linda Hearell Vice President/ County Manager ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Mark Nassraway Vice President/Sales Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Chicago Title Company Attn: Mary Thompson One Better World Circle Temecula, CA 92590 951-676-3695 maryk.thompson@ctt.com Acting PM Initials:�� Date: 2 Item No . 15 Item No . 15 Revised Attachment to the First Amendment to the Agreement with Geocon West, Inc. for June 28, 2016 City Council Meeting GEOCON W E S T, I N C. lift G E 0 7 E C M N I C A I. ■ E N V I R O N M E N T A l ■ M A T E R i A I S 2016 SCHEDULE OF FEES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Word Processor/Non-Technical Assistant,Draftsman........................................................................................................... $70/hr. Engineering Assistant/Lab Technician.................................................................................................................................. 70/hr. Engineering Field Technician(Geotechnical Inspection/Testing- Including Nuclear Gauge).............................. 78/92(PW)'/hr. Engineering Special Inspector(Deputy/Special Inspection- Including Sampling Equipment)............................. 78/92(PW)'/hr. StaffEngineer/Geologist........................................................................................................................................................ 100/hr. ProjectEngineer/Geologist.................................................................................................................................................... 120/hr. SeniorProject Engineer/Geologist......................................................................................................................................... 135/hr. SeniorEngineer/Geologist..................................................................................................................................................... 150/hr. AssociateEngineer/Geologist................................................................................................................................................ 180/hr. Principal Engineer/Geologist/Litigation Support................................................................................................................... 220/hr. Deposition or Court Appearance........................................................................................................................................... 400/hr. Overtime/Saturday Rate/Night Rate(I Opm—6am)............................................................................ 1.5 X Regular Hourly Rate Sunday and Holiday Rate........................................................................................................................ 2 X Regular Hourly Rate MinimumProfessional Fee................................................................................................................................... $500/Per Project Minimum Field Services Fee(per day or per call-out)..........................................................................................................4 Hours Short-Notice Cancellation(within 24 hours).........................................................................................................................2 Hours Short-Notice Cancellation(upon or after arrival at jobsite)...................................................................................................4 Hours *Prevailing Wage(PW)California Labor Code§1720,et. Seq TRAVEL Personnel....................................................................................................................................................... Regular Hourly Rate Subsistence(Per Diem)......................................................................................................................................................$125/day VehicleMileage ................................................................................................................................................................0.60/mile EQUIPMENT&MATERIALS Vehicle& Equipment............................................................$12/hr. Stainless Sampling Pump ..................................$150/day Coring Machine(concrete,asphalt, masonry)...................$175/day Battery-Powered Pump ..........................................75/day Generator............................................................................. 100/day Water Level Indicator ............................................40/day Asphalt Cold Patch/Concrete(60-Ib.),Cement(94-Ib.)........20/bag Interface Probe ......................................................58/day GPS Unit.............................................................................. 160/day Photo-Ionization Meter........................................ 125/day Pick-up Truck ..................................................................... 125/day Combustible Gas Meter .........................................80/day Equipment Truck ................................................................200/day pH/Conductivity/Temperature Meter ....................50/day Direct-Push Rig/Operator ................................165/190(PW)'/hour Turbidity Meter .....................................................80/day Drive-Tube Sampler..............................................................40/day Level D PPE/Decon Rinse Equipment ..................50/day Hand-Auger ..........................................................................40/day De-Ionized Water(5-gallon) ...................................15/ea. Soil Sample Tube(Brass) ...................................................... 10/ea. Air Compressor ................................................... 100/day Soil Sample Tube(Stainless) ................................................. I O/ea. 55-Gallon Drum .......................................................55/ea. Bailer(Reusable) ..................................................................33/day Visqueen (6 mil 20x100') .....................................135/roll Bailer(Disposable) ................................................................ 13/ea. Traffic Cones/Barricades .......................................35/day LABORATORY TESTS** COMPACTION CURVES SOIL AND AGGREGATE STABILITY 4-inch mold(D1557).................................................$175-ea. Resistance Value, R-Value(D2844)(CT 301)...............$250/ea. 6-inch mold(D1557)...................................................190/ea. R-Value.Treated (CT 301).............................................260/ea. California Impact(CT 216).........................................200/ea. California Bearing Ratio(D1883)...................................525/ea. Check Point....................................................................85/ea. Stabilization Ability of Lime(C977)...............................I80/ea. SOIL AND AGGREGATE PROPERTIES PERMEABILITY,CONSOLIDATION AND EXPANSION #200 Wash(DI 140/C117)...........................................$55/ea. Permeability. Flexible Wall(D5084).............................$265/ea. Wet or Dry Sieve Analysis to#200(C136)...................80/ea. Permeability, Rigid Wall (135856)...................................255/ea. Hydrometer Analysis(D422)......................................I SO/ea. Consolidation, per point(D2435).......................................42/pt. Sieve Analysis with Hydrometer(13422)....................150/ea. Expansion Index(D4829/UBC 29-2)...............................135/ea. Specific Gravity,Soil(13854)........................................70/ea. AGGREGATE QUALITY Specific Gravity Coarse Aggregate(C 127)...................50/ea. Sieve Analysis(Both Fine&Coarse)(CT 202) ..............175/ea. Specific Gravity Fine Aggregate(C 128).......................68/ea. L.A. Rattler Test(500 rev.)(C 131)..................................185/ea. Moisture Determination,tube sample(D2216).............21/ea. Sulfate Soundness(per sieve size)(C88).........................100/ea. Moisture Content(CT 226) ..........................................25/ea. Durability Index(fine or coarse)(D3744)(CT 229).........165/ea. Moisture Determination and Unit Weight(D2937).......42/ea. Unit Weight(C-29)..........................................................$69/ea. Atterberg Limits: Plasticity Index(D4318).................150/ea. Organic Impurities-Sand(C40)........................................55/ea. Sand Equivalent(D2419)(CT 217)................................90/ea. Friable Particles(C 142)......................................................80/ea. pH and Resistivity(CT 643)........................................130/ea. SHEAR STRENGTH Sulfate Content(CT 417)..............................................90/ea. Unconfined Compression(D2166)..................................$95/ea. Chloride Content(CT 422)............................................50/ea. Direct Shear, Quick,per point(D3080).............................65/pt. CONCRETE Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear(D2850)........ 110/pt. Compressive Strength,Cast Cylinders(C39)(CT 521).30/ea. Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Staged(D2850).......158/ea. Compressive Strength, Cores(C42)..............................43/ea. Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear(D4767)............263/pt. Cleanness Value(CT 227) ..........................................165/ea. Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Staged(D4767)...........335/ea. Flexural Strength Beam(C78/C293).............................80/ea. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Shear(EM I I10).............370/pt. Splitting Tensile Test(C496).........................................69/ea. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Staged(EM 1110)...........475/ea. Mix Design Review.....................................................185/ea. MASONRY Trial Batch...................................................................475/ea. CMU Compressive Strength(C 140)................................$60/ea. Rebar I Tensile& I Bend Test(Up to#I I).................100/ea. Compressive Strength,Grout(C 1019/UBC 21-19)...........30/ea. ASPHALT CONCRETE Compressive Strength, Mortar(C 109/UBC 21-15,16).......30/ea. Density, Hveem(D2726/CAL'08)..............................$85/ea. CMU Unit Wt., Dimension, Absorption(C 140)................60/ea. Stabilometer(D I 560/CAL304).....................................99/ea. Compressive Strength, Small Prism<7.62"(C 1314).......105/ea. Theoretical Max. Specific Gravity(132041).................. 70/ea. Compressive Strength, Large Prism>7.62"(C 1314).......150/ea. Sieve Analysis Extracted Aggregate (D5444).............. 80/ea. Shoterete Panel —Coring and Testing(per core)............65/ea. %Asphalt, Ignition Method (CT 382//136307)........... 100/ea. CMU Compressive Strength(C 140)................................$60/ea. %Asphalt,Nuclear Gauge(CT 379)........................... 105/ea. **2X Surcharge on rush turn-around for laboratory Unit Weight,Core(D1188)...........................................60/ea. testing. .2. Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Amendments to Annual Agreements for Professional On-Call Services Required by the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) Division, for Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Judith M. McNabb, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the following Amendments to Annual Agreements in the amounts stated for Fiscal Year 2016-17 for professional on-call services for various needs by the Department of Public Works, CIP Division. Property Acquisition Services Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. — First Amendment $60,000 Paragon Partners Ltd. — First Amendment $60,000 Geotechnical and Material Testing Services Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. — First Amendment $100,000 Geocon West, Inc. — First Amendment $100,000 Leighton Consulting, Inc. — First Amendment $100,000 Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services David Evans and Associates, Inc. — First Amendment $100,000 Dokken Engineering — First Amendment $100,000 Michael Baker International, Inc. —Second Amendment $100,000 BACKGROUND: Effective July 1, 2015, the City Council approved agreements with the above listed firms to complete on-call services necessary to assist with delivering projects. Needed services are identified and scope and fees are requested from the appropriate Consultant. Consultants submit current payment rates and schedule for each service request, and funds are allocated from the corresponding CIP project budget. Only approved CIP projects will utilize the services under these agreements, unless directed otherwise by the City Manager or City Council. The original agreements allow for multiple extensions. Agreement extensions will allow for continued services during Fiscal Year 2016-17. Each firm listed has responded to service requests in a timely manner, provided an economical means of completing the necessary work and performed satisfactorily. Therefore, staff is recommending agreement extensions for these vendors. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds have been appropriated in the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvement Projects Division, Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget. Individual service requests are funded by the various funding sources approved for each project ATTACHMENTS: 1. Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. — First Amendment 2. Paragon Partners Ltd. — First Amendment 3. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. — First Amendment 4. Geocon West, Inc. — First Amendment 5. Leighton Consulting, Inc. — First Amendment 6. David Evans and Associates, Inc. — First Amendment 7. Dokken Engineering — First Amendment 8. Michael Baker International, Inc. —Second Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROPERTY ACQUISITION SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$60,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of$60,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000), for additional Property Acquisition Services, for a total Agreement amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000). 4. Exhibit "B" to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Terry Rodrique, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Debbie Thorson, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. Attn: Julie Cline 15140 Transistor Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714.899.9039 jcline@interwestgrp.com PM Initials- Date: nitialsDate: t 2 ATTACHMENT A Payment Rates and Schedule 3 Fee Schedule PROPERTY ACQUISITION SERVICES THE CITY Or TEMECULA Property Acquisition Services—Jntervest Consulting Group INTER VII E 5 T Project Manager $150.00/Hr Senior Real Property Agent $125.00/Hr Real Property Agent $110.00/Hr Real Estate Technician $85.00/Hr Senior Administrative $6 5.00/Hr The ho Ay rates include all overhead,travel and supplies Surveying Services—Mark Thomas&Company Principal $325.00/Hr Land Surveyor/Survey Manager $200.00/Hr Project Surveyor $145.00/Hr Engineering/Survey/CADD Technician $126.00/Hr Inspector $121.00/Hr Technical Writer $105.00/Hr Design(Tech Assistant) $68.00/Hr Survey(Tech Assistant) $68.00/Hr Administrative $80.00/Hr Relocation Services—Dei Richardson&Associates,Jne. Project Director $155/Hr Project Manager $130/Hr Sr.Rel oc ati on Agent $120/Fir Relocation Agent $100/Hr Administrative $70/Hr Appraisal Services Robert Shea Perdue, MAI See Attached Appraisal Review Roger Doverspike,MAI See Attached Updated 6.15.16 4 PROPERTY ACQUISITION SERVICES THE CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2 1NTERWEST Good Will Appraisal Donna Desmond&Associates Goodwill Loss Appraisal Preparation $335 Testimony $435 FF&EAppraisal-Hodges Lacey&Assodates,LLC Michael Lacey,PSA $150/Hr Richard Hodges,ASA $150fHr Title&Escrow—Commonwealth Land Title Preliminary Title Reports See attached Litigation Guarantees See attached Escrow Fees See attached Title Insurance Rates Dependent upon value of title insurance Updated 6.15.16 5 PERDUE&RUSSELL REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL 41919 Moreno Road,Suite A,Temecula,CA 92590 Serving Southern California Phone:(951)694-6904 Fax:(951)694-6964 Appraisal Cbijsalanxs to Govemmen�Financial,Legaland Agncul u a Indus nes Fee Schedule City of Temecula Department of Public Works April 10,2015 Type of Property/Project Minimum (Starting) Appraisal Fees Land Residential Land $2,000-$20,000* Commercial Land $2,000-$20,000* Industrial Land $2,000-$20,000* Improved Single Family $1,500*(if aforn) Multi Family $2,000-$20,000* Commercial $2,500-$20,000* Industrial $2,000-$20,000* Reviews Desk Top Review $1,000-$20,000* Review&Opinion of Value $1,500-$20,000* *The Not-to-exceed amount will ultimately depend upon the complexity and size of the assignment. For example, a street right-of-way acquisition containing 50 properties, or a redevelopment project containing a similar number of properties will result in a much higher fee. Fee determinants include the type of report:Restricted or Summary Appraisal,as well as property characteristics,Highest and Best Use,etc.,as well as the client's timing. Appraisals are quoted and billed on a lump sum case-by-case basis. Should appraisers'time be required for litigation appraisal including updated estimates of value,attorney/client conferences, deposition or expert witness testimony,this time will be billed at our standard rates of$250 and $350 per hour,respectively. PRREA's current hourly rate schedule for standard appraisal report services is as follows: Hourly Rate Robert Shea Perdue,MAI $250 Richard T. Russell,Partner and Senior Appraiser $225 Roger Doverspike,MAI, Senior Appraiser $225 Brad Bassi,Partner, Senior Appraiser $180 Brenda Fusco, Senior Appraiser $180 Colleen M.Matthies, Senior Appraiser $180 Glenna Reynolds,Office Manager/Research Assistant $90 6 EXHIBIT A MARK THOMAS&COMPANY,INC. CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE"J-1" Expires June 30,2016 HOURLY CHARGE RATES PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE Principal $325.00 per hour Senior Engineering Manager 310.00 per hour Engineering Manager 252.00 per hour Structural Manager 278.00 per hour Senior Project Manager 226.00 per hour Senior Survey Manager 210.00 per hour Project Manager 200.00 per hour Survey Manager 200.00 per hour Senior Project Engineer 178.00 per hour Project Engineer 168.00 per hour Senior Design Engineer 158.00 per hour Design Engineer 118.00 per hour Project Surveyor 145.00 per hour Sr.Engineering/Survey/CADD Technician 126.00 per hour Engineering/Survey/CADD Technician 110.00 per hour Inspector 121.00 per hour Technical Writer 105.00 per hour Design(Tech Assistant) 68.00 per hour Survey(Tech Assistant) 68.00 per hour Senior Project Coordinator 108.00 per hour Project Coordinator 100.00 per hour Senior Administrative 85.00 per hour Administrative 80.00 per hour FIELD Single Chief without Equipment $119.00 per hour Single Chief with Equipment 170.00 per hour Single Chainman 96.00 per hour 2 Person Field Party and Vehicle 270.00 per hour 3 Person Field Party and Vehicle 345.00 per hour LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SERVICES Landscape Architect II $200.00 per hour Landscape Architect I $178.00 per hour SPECIAL SERVICES Expert Witness $375.00 per hour Strategic Consulting(Principal) 375.00 per hour OTHER DIRECT COSTS Reimbursables including,but not limited to: Printing and Materials,Filing Fees,and Field Expenses -Cost plus 5% Outside Consultant Fees -Cost plus 5% *Rates subject to escalation with new hourly rate schedule as of July 1,2016 pg. 1-REV 1 7 Commonwealth` rM LAND TITLE COMPANY Preliminary Title Report Fees Property Type SFR's $4504550 Commercial/Industrial $550-$750 Utility Owned $750-$1,000 Municipal:City,County,State, $700-$1,500 Federal Rail Road $1,500-$2,000 e One free update of the title report is provided within 12 months from the time of order.From 13-24 months the cost is$350 and anything beyond 24 months could require a new search. Plotted Easements are an additional$65.00.Please allow extra time to process these. Preliminary Title Reports will contain the most current vesting deed and copies of any and all applicable underlying schedule B documents including tax and other assessment information,any and all easements and rights of way,any and all deeds,restrictions,covenants,UCC financing statements affecting property and any pending legal activity,lawsuits and bankruptcy filings of record. Our standard fees listed above include up to 3 contiguous parcel numbers with same ownership for SFR and Commercial/Industrial properties located in Southern California. Products will be distributed in soft copy format.Additional fees could be added for"Special Handling"or when significant"Hard Costs"on a local basis is required.Properties requiring additional time and increased price are but not limited to Rail Road,Utility Owned,City,County,State,Fcderal, BLM or any other Government owned property.The above pricing are estimated ranges. 4100 Newport Place Dr.Ste.120 Newport Beach,Ca 92660 8 COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PART II OWNER'S INSURANCE Insurance Rate Table "R" (without escrow services) Lender's Lender's Residentia Concurrent Base Rate Residential Concurrent Base Rate I Owner's Rate Amount of Insurance Owner's Owner's Rate Rate Amount of Insurance Owner's Rate Up to and including $30,000 $396 $400 $285 $165,001-170,000 $870 $738 $365 $30,001-35,000 $418 $400 $285 $170,001-175,000 $884 $750 $370 $35,001-40,000 $418 $400 $285 $175,001-180,000 $899 $762 $375 $40,001-45,000 $462 $400 $285 1 $180,001-185,000 $913 $773 $380 $45,001-50,000 $462 $400 $285 $185,001-190,000 $928 $785 $385 $50,001-55,000 $472 $418 $285 $190,001-195,000 $943 $796 $390 $55,001-60,000 $494 $435 $285 $195,001-200,000 $957 $808 $395 $60,001-65,000 $516 $453 $285 $200,001-205,000 $971 $819 $400 $65,001-70,000 $538 $470 $285 $205,001-210,000 $986 $830 $405 $70,001-75,000 $560 $488 $285 $210,001-215,000 $1,000 $842 $410 $75,001-80,000 $582 $506 $285 $215,001-220,000 $1,014 $853 $41.5 $80,001-85,000 $604 $523 $285 $220,001-225,000 $1,029 $864 $420 $85,001-90,000 $626 $541 $285 $225,001-230,000 $1,043 $875 $425 $90,001-95,000 $648 $558 $285 $230,001-235,000 $1,057 $886 $430 $95,001-100,000 $667 $,576 $285 $235,001-240,000 $1,071 $898 $435 $100,001-105,000 $681 $588 $300 $240,001-245,000 $1,086 $909 $440 $105,001-110,000 $695 $599 $305 $245,001-250,000 $1,100 $920 $445 $110,001-115,000 $711 $611 $310 $250,001-255,000 $1,114 $931 $450 $115,001-120,000 $725 $622 $315 $255,001-260,000 $1,129 $942 $455 $120,001-125,000 $739 $634 $320 $260,001-265,000 $1,143 $954 $460 $125,001-130,000 $754 $646 $325 $265,001-270,000 $1,157 $965 $465 $130,001-135,000 $768 $657 $330 $270,001-275,000 $1,172 $976 $470 $135,001-140,000 $783 $669 $335 $275,001-280,000 $1,186 $987 $475 $140.001-145,000 $798 $680 $340 $280,001-285,000 $1,200 $998 $480 $145,001-150,000. $812 $692 $345 $285,001-290,000 $1,214 $1,010 $485 $150,001-155,000 $826 $704 $350 $290,001-295,000 $1,229 $1,021 $490 $155,001-160,000 $840 $715 $355 $295,001-300,000 $1,243 $1,032 $490 $160,001-165,000 $856 $727 $360 For Each Additional$5,000 or Base Rate(Owner's) Residential Owner's Lender's fraction thereof above$300,000 Rate Concurrent Rate Up to and including$500,000 Add$10.55 per$5,000 $1,665 Add$8.50 per$5,000 $1,372 Add$5.25 per$5,000 $700 Up to and including$850,000 Add$9.90 per$5,000 $2,358 Add$7.90 per$5,000 $1,925 Add$5.25 per$5,000 $1,067.50 Up to and including$1,000,000 Add$9.50 per$5,000 $2,643 Add$7.60 per$5,000 $2,153 Add$3.55 per$5,000 $1,174 Up to and including$1,500,000 Add$7.50 per$5,000 $3,393 Add$6.00 per$5,000 $2,753 Add$2.50 per$5,000 $1,424 Up to and including$2,000,000 Add$7.25 per$5,000 $4,118 Add$5.60 per$5,000 $3,313 Add$2.20 per$5,000 $1,644 Up to and including$2,500,000 Add$4.00 per$5,000 $4,518 Add$3.35 per$5,000 $3,648 Add$2.20 per$5,000 $1,864 Up to and including$3,000,000 Add$3.70 per$5,000 $4,888 Add$3.15 per$5,000 $3,963 Add$2.20 per$5,000 $2,084 Up to and including$4,000,000 Add$3.60 per$5,000 $5,608 Add$2.95 per$5,000 $4,553 Add$2.20 per$5,000 $2,524 Over$4,000,000 Add$3.70 per$5,000 Add$2.95 per$5,000 Add$2.20 per$5,000 13 State of California Effective: May 18,2016 9 COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY Chapter 9 Commercial Escrow Fees and Charges Applicable to Zones 1 and 5 For use in the counties of. Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino and Ventura 9.0 Commercial Sale Escrow Services Transaction Amount Fee Charged Up to$60,000 $630 $60,001 to$100,000 $725 $100,001 to$150,000 $775 $150,001 to$200,000 $825 $200,001 to$250,000 $875 $250,001 to$300,000 $925 $300,001 to$350,000 $975 $350,001 to$400,000 $1,025 $400,001 to$450,000 $1,075 $450,001 to$500,000 $1,125 $500,001 to$550,000 $1,240 $550,001 to$600,000 $1,355 $600,001 to$650,000 $1,470 $650,001 to$700,000 $1,585 $700,001 to$750,000 $1,700 $750,001 to$800,000 $1,815 $800,001 to$850,000 $1,930 $850,001 to$900,000 $2,045 $900,001 to$950,000 $2,160 $950,001 to$1,000,000 $2,275 $1,000,001 to$2,000,000 $2,675 $2,000,001 to$3,000,000 $3,175 Minimum$3,175. If additional charges are to be made,they will be based on the costs incurred and additional responsibilities $3,000,001 and up assumed by the Company, and must be agreed to by the customer in writing. In writing includes customer's approval of settlement statement. 42 State of California Effective: January 11,2014 10 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND PARAGON PARTNERS LTD PROPERTY ACQUISITION SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Paragon Partners Ltd., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$60,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of$60,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000), for additional Property Acquisition Services, for a total Agreement amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000). 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA PARAGON PARTNERS LTD. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Neilia A. LaValle, President and CEO ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Joel Sewell, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Paragon Partners Ltd. Attn: Kent Jorgensen 5762 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714.379.3376 kjorgensen@paragon-partners.com PMInitials Date: Date: 2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$100,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of $100,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), for additional Geotechnical and Material Testing Services, for a total Agreement amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000). 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Tom Gaeto, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Dan T. Math, Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Attn: Lisa Garcia 14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A Riverside, CA 92518 951.571.4081 lisa@cte-inc.net PM Initials Date: � 2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND GEOCON WEST, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Geocon West, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$100,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of $100,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), for additional Geotechnical and Material Testing Services, for a total Agreement amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000). 4. Exhibit "B" to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA GEOCON WEST, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Joseph Vettel, CEO/President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk William J. Lydon, CFO APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Geocon West, Inc. Attn: Lisa Battiato 41571 Corning Place, Suite 101 Murrieta, CA 92562 951.304.2300 battiato@geoconic.com PM Initials: Date: L 2 ATTACHMENT A Payment Rates and Schedule 3 GEOCON W E S T, I N C. G E O T E C H N I C A L ■ E N V ) R O N M E N T A t ■ M A T E R I A L S lf;o 2016 SCHEDULE OF FEES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................_......_..........._._..._........................................ Word ProcessorlNon-Technical Assistant/Draftsman....................................................................................................................... $70/hr. Engineering Assistant/Lab Technician.............................................................................................................................................. 70/hr. Engineering Field Technician(Geotechnical Inspectionlfesting-Including Nuclear Gauge).......................................... 78/92(PW)*lhr. Engineering Special Inspector(Deputy/Special Inspection-Including Sampling Equipment)......................................... 78/92(PW)*/hr. StaffEngineer/Geologist................................................................................................................................................................... 100/hr. ProjectEngineer/Geologist............................................................................................................................................................... 120/hr. Senior Project Engineer/Geologist.................................................................................................................................................... 135/hr. SeniorEngineer)Geologist................................................................................................................................................................ 150/hr. AssociateEngineer/Geologist........................................................................................................................................................... 180/hr. Principal Engineer/Geologist/Litigation Support.............................................................................................................................. 220/hr. Depositionor Court Appearance....................................................................................................................................................... 400/hr. Overtime/Saturday Rate Night Rate(10pm—6am)......................................................................................... 1.5 X Regular Hourly Rate Sunday and Holiday Rate..................................................................................................................................... 2 X Regular Hourly Rate Minimum Professional Fee..................................................................................................................................................$500/Per Project Minimum Field Services Fee(per day or per call-out)..................................................................................................................... 4 Hours Short-Notice Cancellation(within 24 hours).................................................................................................................................... 2 Hours Short-Notice Cancellation(upon or after arrival at jobsite).............................................................................................................. 4 Hours *Prevailing Wage(PW)CalifmniaLabor Code§1720,et.Seq TRAVEL ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................: Personnel.........................................................................................................................................................................Regular Hourly Rate Subsistence(Per Diem)....................................................................................................................................................................S125/day VehicleMileage .............................................................................................................................................................................0.60/mile EQUIPMENT&MATERIALS ....................................................................................._................._..._.............................................................................................................................................................................._..._................._................................. .................._.. Vehicle&Equipment............................................................$12/hr. Stainless Sampling Pump .................................................$150/day Coring Machine(concrete,asphalt,masonry)...................$175/day Battery-Powered Pump.........................................................75/day Generator............................................................................100/day Water Level Indicator...........................................................40/day Asphalt Cold Patch/Concrete(60-]b.),Cement(94-1b.)........20 bag Interface Probe .....................................................................58/day GPS Unit.............................................................................160/day Photo-Ionization Meter.......................................................125/day Pick-up Truck.....................................................................125/day Combustible Gas Meter........................................................80/day Equipment Truck ...............................................................200/day pnConductivity/Temperature Meter ...................................50/day Direct-Push RiglOpemtor ...............................165/190(PW)*,hour Turbidity Meter ....................................................................80/day Drive-Tube Sampler.............................................................40/day Level D PPE/Decon Rinse Equipment .................................50/day Hand-Auger .........................................................................40/day De-Ionized Water(5-gallon) .................................................151ea. Soil Sample Tube(Brass) .....................................................10/ea. Air Compressor..................................................................100/day Soil Sample Tube(Stainless) ................................................10/ea 55-Gallon Drum.....................................................................551ea Bailer(Reusable) .................................................................33/day Visqueen(6 mil 20x100')...................................................1351roll Bailer(Disposable) ...............................................................13/ea. Traffic Cones/Barricades......................................................35/day LABORATORY TESTS" COMPACTION CURVES SOIL AND AGGREGATE STABILITY 4-inch mold(D1557).........................................................$175/ea Resistance Value,R-Value(D2844)(CT 301)...................$250/ea. 6-inch mold(D1557)...........................................................190/ea. R-Value,Treated (CT 301).................................................260/ea. Californialmpact(CT 216).................................................200/ea California Bearing Ratio(D1883).......................................525/ea Check Point............................................................................85/ea. Stabilization Ability of Lime(C977)...................................180/ea. SOIL AND AGGREGATE PROPERTIES PERMEABILITY,CONSOLIDATION AND EXPANSION #200 Wash(DI 140/C 117)...................................................$55/ea. Permeability,Flexible Wall(D5084).................................$2651ea. Wet or Dry Sieve Analysis to#200(0136)...........................80/ea. Permeability,Rigid Wall(D5856).......................................255/ea. Hydrometer Analysis(D422)...............................................150/ea. Consolidation,per point(D2435)...........................................42/pt. Sieve Analysis with Hydrometer(D422).............................150/ea Expansion Index(D4829/UBC 29-2)...................................1351ea- 4 LABORATORY TESTS(CONTINUED) Specific Gravity,Soil(DS54)..............................................$70/ea. AGGREGATE QUALITY Specific Gravity Coarse Aggregate(C127)...........................50/ea Sieve Analysis(Both Fine&Coarse)(CT 202)..................175/ea. Specific Gravity Fine Aggregate(C128)...............................68/ea. L.A.Rattler Test(500 rev.)(C131)......................................185/ea. Moisture Determination,tube sample(D2216).....................21/ea Sulfate Soundness(per sieve size)(C88).............................100/ea. Moisture Content(CT 226)...................................................25/ea Durability Index(fine or coarse)(D3744)(CT 229).............165/ea. Moisture Determination and Unit Weight(D2937)...............42/ea Unit Weight(C-29)..............................................................$69/ea. Atterberg Limits:Plasticity Index(D43 IS).........................150/ea. Organic Impurities-Sand(C40)............................................55/ea. Sand Equivalent(D2419)(CT 217)........................................90/ea Friable Particles(C142).........................................................80/ea. pH and Resistivity(CT 643)................................................130/ea. SHEAR STRENGTH Sulfate Content(CT 417).......................................................90/ea. Unconfined Compression(D2166)......................................$95/ea. Chloride Content(CT 422)....................................................50/ea Direct Shear,Quick,per point(D3080).................................65/pt. CONCRETE Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear(D2850).............110/pt. Compressive Strength,Cast Cylinders(C39)(CT 521)..........30/ea Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Staged(D2850)...........158/ea. Compressive Strength,Cores(C42)......................................43/ea Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear(D4767).................263/pt. Cleanness Value(CT 227)..................................................165/ea Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Staged(D4767)...............335/ea. Flexural Strength Beam(C78/C293).....................................80/ea. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Shear(EMI 110).................370/pt. Splitting Tensile Test(C496).................................................69/ea. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Staged(EMI I10)...............475/ea. Mix Design Review.............................................................185/ea. MASONRY Trial Batch...........................................................................475/ea. CMU Compressive Strength(C140)....................................$60/ea. Rebar 1 Tensile&1 Bend Test(Up to 911).........................100/ea. Compressive Strength,Grout(CIO19/UBC 21-19)...............30/ea. ASPHALT CONCRETE Compressive Strength,Mortar(C109/UBC 21-15,16)...........30/ea. Density,Hveem(D2726/CAL308)......................................$85/ea. CMU Unit Wt.,Dimension,Absorption(C 140)....................60/ea. Stabilometer(D1560/CAL304).............................................99/ea. Compressive Strength,Small Prism<7.62"(C1314)...........105/ea. Theoretical Max.Specific Gravity(D2041)..........................70/ea. Compressive Strength,Large Prism>7.62"(C 1314)...........150/ea. Sieve Analysis Extracted Aggregate (D5444)......................80/ea. Shotcrete Panel—Coring and Testing(per core)...............65/ea. %Asphalt,Ignition Method (CT 382//D6307)...................100/ea. CMU Compressive Strength(C140)....................................$60/ea. •Asphalt,Nuclear Gauge(CT 379)...................................105/ea. Unit Weight,Core(D1188)...................................................60/ea. **2X Surcharge on rush turn-around for laboratory testing. 1. Listed are typical charges for the services most frequently performed by Geocon. Prices for unlisted services as well as special quotations for programs involving volume work will be provided upon request.Laboratory test prices shown are for laboratory work only,and include reporting of routine results not calling for comments,recommendations or conclusions 2. Sampling and testing is conducted in substantial conformance with the latest applicable or designated specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials,Caltrans,American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,or otherpertinent agencies. 3. Saturday, night world and overtime hours are charged at time and one-half Sundays and holidays at double time.Nightwork is an eight hour minimum.Perdiem is$125.00 per day when location of work dictates. 4. Equipment and materials will be billed at cost plus 15%.Outside services including subcontractors and rental of special equipment are billed at cost plus 15%.Hourly services are billed portal to portal from closest office in accordance with the stated hourly rales herein,with a minimum two-hour charge 5. Invoices will be submitted at four-week intervals.Terms of payment are met upon presentation of invoice.Invoices become delinquent thirty(30) days from invoice date and subject to one and one-halfpercent(1-112%)service charge per month,or the maximum rate allowed bylaw,whichever is lower.If Client objects to all or any portion of any invoice, Client will so notify Geocon in writing within fourteen(14)calendar days of the invoice date,identify the cause of disagreement,and pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute.The parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion of the invoice.Payment on delinquent invoices will first be applied to accrued interest and then to the principal amount. Ail time spent and expenses incurred(including any attorney's fees and costs)in connection with collection of any delinquent amount will be paid by Client to Geocon per Geocon's current fee schedule. 6. Client and Geocon shall allocate certain of the risks so that,to the tidiest extent permitted by law,Geocon's(the term"Geocon"includes Geocon's partners,officers, directors,employees,agents,affiliates,subcontractors and subconsultants)total aggregate Liability to Client is limited to the greater of$50,000 or the total compensation received from Client by Geocon for services rendered on this project,for any and all of Client's injuries,damages,claims,losses,expenses,or claim expenses arising out of this Agreement from any cause or causes,including attorneys'fees and costs which may be awarded to the prevailing party,and Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Geocon from and against all liabilities in excess of the monetary limit established above. Client and Geocon shall allocale certain of the other risks so that,to the fullest extent permitted by law,Client shall limit Geocon's total aggregate liability to all third parties,including contractors,subcontractors of all tiers, materialmen, and others involved in Client's project,as well as persons and other entities not involved in the project,to the greater of$100,000 or the total compensation received from Client by Geocon for services rendered on thisproject,for any and all injuries,damages,cause or causes,including attorneys'fees and costs which may be awarded to the prevailing party, and Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Geocon from and against all liabilities in excess of the monetary limit established above,including all liability incurred by Geocon for acts,errors,or omissions,pursuant to entering into agreements with third parties on behalf of Client in order to obtain access or entry onto property not owned by Client. Client agrees to notify all contractors and subcontractors of any limitation of Geocon's liability to them,and require them to abide by such limitation for damages suffered by any contractor or subcontractor arising from Geocon's actions or inactions. Neither the contractor nor any subcontractor assumes any liabilityfor damages to others which may arise on account of Geocon's actions or inactions. -2- 5 Item No . 15 Revised Attachment to the First Amendment to the Agreement with Geocon West, Inc. for June 28 , 2016 City Council Meeting GEOCON W E S T. I N C. YV�� G E O T E C H N I C A l • ENVIRONMENTAL ■ M A T E R I A t 5 2016 SCHEDULE OF FEES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Word Processor/Non-Technical Assistant/Draftsman........................................................................................................... $70/hr. Engineering Assistant/Lab Technician.................................................................................................................................. 70/hr. Engineering Field Technician (Geotechnical Inspectionrfesting-Including Nuclear Gauge).............................. 78/92(PW)*/hr. Engineering Special Inspector(Deputy/Special Inspection-Including Sampling Equipment)............................. 78/92(PW)*/hr. StaffEngineer/Geologist........................................................................................................................................................ 100/hr. ProjectEngineer/Geologist.................................................................................................................................................... 120/hr. SeniorProject Engineer/Geologist......................................................................................................................................... 135/hr. SeniorEngineer/Geologist..................................................................................................................................................... 150/hr. AssociateEngineer/Geologist................................................................................................................................................ I80/hr. Principal Engineer/Geologist/Litigation Support................................................................................................................... 220/hr. Depositionor Court Appearance........................................................................................................................................... 400/hr. Overtime/Saturday Rate/Night Rate(1 Opm—6am)............................................................................ 1.5 X Regular Hourly Rate Sunday and Holiday Rate........................................................................................................................ 2 X Regular Hourly Rate Minimum Professional Fee................................................................................................................................... $500/Per Project Minimum Field Services Fee(per day or per call-out)..........................................................................................................4 Hours Short-Notice Cancellation(within 24 hours).........................................................................................................................2 Hours Short-Notice Cancellation(upon or after arrival at jobsite)...................................................................................................4 Hours *Prevailing Wage(PW)California Labor Code §1720,et. Seq TRAVEL Personnel....................................................................................................................................................... Regular Hourly Rate Subsistence(Per Diem)......................................................................................................................................................$125/day VehicleMileage ........................................................................•.......................................................................................0.60/mile EGIIPIBff IL MATERIALS Vehicle& Equipment............................................................$12/hr. Stainless Sampling Pump ..................................$150/day Coring Machine(concrete,asphalt, masonry)...................$l75/day Battery-Powered Pump..........................................75/day Generator.............................................................................100/day Water Level Indicator ............................................40/day Asphalt Cold Patch/Concrete(60-Ib.),Cement(94-Ib.)........20/bag Interface Probe ......................................................58/day GPS Unit..............................................................................160/day Photo-Ionization Meter........................................ 125/day Pick-up Truck .....................................................................125/day Combustible Gas Meter .........................................80/day Equipment Truck ................................................................200/day pH/Conductivity/Temperature Meter ....................50/day Direct-Push Rig/Operator ................................165/190(PW)*/hour Turbidity Meter .....................................................80/day Drive-Tube Sampler..............................................................40/day Level D PPE/Decon Rinse Equipment ..................50/day Hand-Auger ..........................................................................40/day De-Ionized Water(5-gallon) ...................................15/ea. Soil Sample Tube(Brass) ...................................................... 10/ea. Air Compressor ................................................... I00/day Soil Sample Tube(Stainless) ................................................. 10/ea. 55-Gallon Drum .......................................................55/ea. Bailer(Reusable) ..................................................................33/day Visqueen(6mil 20xI00').....................................135/roll Bailer(Disposable) ................................................................ 13/ea. Traffic Cones/Barricades .......................................35/day LABORATORY TESTS" COMPACTION CURVES SOIL AND AGGREGATE STABILITY 4-inch mold(D1557).................................................SI 75/ea. Resistance Value, R-Value(D2844)(CT 30 1)...............$250/ea. 6-inch mold(D1557)...................................................190/ea. R-Value,Treated (CT 301).............................................260/ea. California Impact(CT 216).........................................200/ea. California Bearing Ratio(D1883)...................................525/ea. Check Point....................................................................85/ea. Stabilization Ability of Lime(C977)...............................180/ea. SOIL AND AGGREGATE PROPERTIES PERMEABILITY,CONSOLIDATION AND EXPANSION #200 Wash(D1140/C117)...........................................$55/ea. Permeability. Flexible Wall(D5084).............................$265/ea. Wet or Dry Sieve Analysis to#200(C 136)...................80/ea. Permeability,Rigid Wall(D5856)...................................255/ea. Hydrometer Analysis(13422)......................................150/ea. Consolidation, per point(D2435).......................................42/pt. Sieve Analysis with Hydrometer(13422)....................150/ea. Expansion Index(D4829/UBC 29-2)...............................135/ea. Specific Gravity, Soil (D854)........................................70/ea. AGGREGATE QUALITY Specific Gravity Coarse Aggregate(C127)...................50/ea Sieve Analysis(Both Fine&Coarse)(CT 202) ..............175/ea. Specific Gravity Fine Aggregate(C 128).......................68/ea. L.A. Rattler Test(500 rev.)(C 131)..................................185/ea. Moisture Determination,tube sample(1322I6).............21/ea. Sulfate Soundness(per sieve size)(C88).........................100/ea. Moisture Content(CT 226) ..........................................25/ea. Durability Index(fine or coarse)(D3744XCT 229).........165/ea. Moisture Determination and Unit Weight(D2937).......42/ea. Unit Weight(C-29)..........................................................$69/ea. Atterberg Limits: Plasticity Index(1343 18).................150/ea. Organic Impurities-Sand(C40)........................................55/ea. Sand Equivalent(D2419XCT 217)................................90/ea. Friable Particles(C 142)......................................................80/ea. pH and Resistivity(CT 643)........................................130/ea. SHEAR STRENGTH Sulfate Content(CT 417)..............................................90/ea. Unconfined Compression (D2166) ..................................$95/ea. Chloride Content(CT 422)............................................50/ea. Direct Shear.Quick, per point(133080).............................65/pt. CONCRETE Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear(132850)........ 110/pt. Compressive Strength,Cast Cylinders(C39XCT 521).30/ea. Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Staged(D2850).......158/ea. Compressive Strength,Cores(C42)..............................43/ea Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear(D4767)............263/pt. Cleanness Value(CT 227) ..........................................165/ea. Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Staged(D4767)...........335/ea. Flexural Strength Beam(C78/C293).............................80/ea. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Shear(EM I 110).............370/pt. Splitting Tensile Test(C496).........................................69/ea. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Staged(EM 1110)...........475/ea. Mix Design Review.....................................................185/ea. MASONRY Trial Batch...................................................................475/ea. CMU Compressive Strength(C 140)................................$60/ea. Rebar I Tensile& I Bend Test(Up to#I 1).................100/ea. Compressive Strength,Grout(CIO 19/UBC 21-19)...........30/ea. ASPHALT CONCRETE Compressive Strength, Mortar(C 109/UBC 21-15,16).......30/ea. Density,Hveem(D2726/CAL308)..............................$85/ea. CMU Unit Wt., Dimension, Absorption(C 140)................60/ea. Stabilometer(DI 560/CAL304).....................................99/ea. Compressive Strength, Small Prism 57.62'(C1314).......105/ea. Theoretical Max. Specific Gravity(13204 1)..................70/ea Compressive Strength. Large Prism>7.62"(C 1314).......150/ea. Sieve Analysis Extracted Aggregate (D5444).............. 80/ea. Shotcrete Panel —Coring and Testing(per core)............65/ea. %Asphalt, Ignition Method (CT 382//D6307)........... 100/ea. CMU Compressive Strength(C140)................................$60/ea %Asphalt,Nuclear Gauge(CT 379)........................... 105/ea. **2X Surcharge on rush turn-around for laboratory Unit Weight,Core(DI 188)...........................................60/ea. testing. -2- FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Leighton Consulting, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$100,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of $100,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), for additional Geotechnical and Material Testing Services, for a total Agreement amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000). 4. Exhibit "B" to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Thomas C. Benson, President and CEO ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Terrance M. Brennan, CFO APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Leighton Consulting, Inc. Attn: Robert Riha 41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103 Temecula, CA 92590-5661 951.296.0530 rriha@leightongroup.com PM Initials- Date: nitialsDate: t 2 ATTACHMENT A Payment Rates and Schedule 3 Temecula On-Call 2016-2017 PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE CLASSIFICATION $MR CLASSIFICATION $MR Dispatcher 72 Project Administrator/Word Processor 72 Technician 1 77 Information Specialist 99 Technician II/Special Inspector 86 CAD Operator 104 Senior Technician/Senior Special Inspector 90 GIS Specialist 122 Prevailing Wage(Field Sols Materials Tested* 110 Staff Engineer I Geologist/Scientist 122 Prevailing Wage(Buildings Construc,lon Inspector)* 112 Senior Staff Engineer I Geologist I Scientist 131 Prevailing Wage(NOT and Sou Remedi at ion O&M)* 126 Operations 1 Laboratory Manager 149 System Operation&Maintenance Specialist 122 Project Engineer/Geologist 1 Scientist 149 Non Destructive Testing 122 Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Scientist 171 Deputy Inspector 122 Associate 189 Field/Laboratory Supervisor 122 Principal 203 *See Prevailing.Wages in Terms and Conditions Senior Principal 243 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING METHOD $!TEST METHOD $/TEST CLASSIFICATION&INDEX PROPERTIES California bearing ratio(ASTM D 1883) Photograph of sample 10 3 point 500 Moisture content(ASTM D 2216) 20 1 point 185 Moisture&density(ASTM D 2937)ring samples 30 R-Value(CTM 301)untreated 310 Moisture&density(ASTM D2937)Shelby tube or cutting 40 R-Value(CTM 301)lime or cement treated soils 340 Atterberg limits(ASTM D 4318)3 points: 150 SOIL CHEMISTRY&CORROSIVITY Single point,non-plastic 85 pH Method A(ASTM 4972 or CTM 643) 45 Atterberg limits(organic ASTM D 248714318) 180 Electrical resistivity—single point—as received moisture 45 Visual classification as non-plastic(ASTM D 2488) 10 Minimum resistivity 3 moisture content points(ASTM G 1871CTM 90 Particle size 643) Sieve only 1'/"to#200,(ASTM D 69131CTM 202) 135 pH+minimum resistivity(CTM 643) 130 Large sieve-6"to#200(ASTM D 6913/CTM 202) 175 Sulfate content-gravimetric(CTM 417 B Part ll) 70 Hydrometer only(ASTM D 422) 110 Sulfate screen(Hach®) 30 Sieve+hydrometer(<Y sieve,ASTM D 422) 185 Chloride content(AASHTO T291/CTM 422) 70 Percent passing#200 sieve,wash only(ASTM D 1140) 70 Corrosion suite:minimum resistivity,sulfate,chloride,pH(CTM 245 Specific gravity-fine(passing#4,ASTM D 854/CTM 207) 125 643) Specific gravity-coarse(ASTM C 127/CTM 206)>#4 retained 100 Organic matter content(ASTM 2974) 65 Total porosity-on Shelby tube sample(calculated from 165 density&specific gravity) SHEAR STRENGTH Total porosity-on other sample 155 Pocket penetrometer 15 Shrinkage limits(wax method,ASTM D 4943) 126 Direct shear(ASTM D 3080,mod.,3 points) Pinhde dispersion(ASTM D 4647) 210 Consolidated undrained-0.05 inch/min(CU) 285 Dispersive characteristics of clay(double hydrometer ASTM D 90 Consolidated drained-<0.05 inch/min(CD) 345 4221) Residual shear EM 1110-2-1906-IXA 50 As-received moisture&density(chunk/carved samples) 60 (price per each additional pass after shear) Sand equivalent(ASTM D 2419/CTM 217) 105 Remolding or hand trimming of specimens(3 points) 90 COMPACTION&PAVEMENT SUBGRADE TESTS Oriented or block hand trimming(per hour) 65 Single point shear 105 Standard proctor compaction,(ASTM D 698)4 points: Torsional shear(ASTM D 6467/ASTM D 7608) 820 4 inch diameter mold(Methods A&B) 180 6 inch diameter mold(Method C) 215 CONSOLIDATION&EXPANSION/SWELL TESTS Modified proctor compaction(ASTM D 1557)4 points Consolidation(ASTM D 2435) 195 4 inch diameter mold(Methods A&B) 220 Each additional time curve 45 6 inch diameter mold(Method C) 245 Each additional loacVunload wlo time reading 40 Check point(per point) 65 Expansion index(ASTM D 4829) 130 Relative compaction of untreated&treated soils&aggregates 250 Swell/collapse—Method A(ASTM D 4546-A,up to 10 290 (CTM 216) load/unloads w/o time curves) Relative density(0.1 ft3 mold,ASTM D 4253,D 4254) 235 Single load swell/collapse-Method B(ASTM D 4546-13,seat, 105 toad&inundate only) 4 METHOD WEST METHOD WEST TRIAXIAL TESTS HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS Unconfined compression strength of cohesive soil(with 135 Triaxial permeability in flexible-wall permeameterwith 310 stress/strain plot,ASTM D 2166) backpressure saturation at one effective stress(EPA Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test on 170 9100/ASTM D 5084,falling head Method C) cohesive soils(USACE Quest,ASTM D 2850,per confining Each additional effective stress 120 stress) Hand trimming of soil samples for horizontal K 60 Consolidated undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive 375 Remolding of test specimens 65 soils,(ASTM D 4767,CU,USACE R-bar test)with back Permeability of granular soils(ASTM D 2434) 135 pressure saturation&pore water pressure measurement SOIL-CEMENT (per confining atdstress) Moisture-density curve for soil-cement mixtures(ASTM D 558) 240 Consolidated drained triaxial compression test(CD,USACE S Wet-dry durability of soil-cement mixtures(ASTM D 559)' 1,205 test),with volume change measurement.Price per soil type bdow EM 1110-2-1906(X): Compressive strength of molded soil-cement cylinders(ASTM 60 Sand or silty sand soils(per confining stress) 375 D 1633)per cylinder' Silt or clayey sand soils(per confining stress) 500 Soil-cement remolded specimen(for shear strength, 235 Clay soils(per confining stress) 705 consolidation,etc.)' Three-stage triaxial(sand or silty sand soils) 655 Compaction(ASTM D 558 maximum density)should also be Three-stage triaxial(silt or clayey sand soils) 875 performed—not included in above price Three-stage triaxial(clay soils) 1,235 Remolding of test specimens 65 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LABORATORY TESTING SAMPLE TRANSPORT $/TRIP METHOD $/TEST Pick-up&delivery—(weekdays,per trip,<50 mile radius from 85 Thickness or height of compacted bituminous paving mixture 40 Leighton office) specimens(ASTM 3549) METHOD $!TEST Rubberized asphalt(add to above rates) + 25% CONCRETE STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS Concrete cylinders compression(ASTM C 39)(6°x 12") 25 Compression,concrete or masonry cores(testing only)<-6" 40 AGGREGATE PROPERTIES diameter(ASTM C 42) Sieve analysis(fine&coarse aggregate,ASTM C 1361 CTM 135 Trimming concrete cores(per core) 20 202)with finer than#200 wash(ASTM C117) Flexural strength of concrete(simple beam with 3rd pt.loading, 85 LA Rattler-smaller coarse aggregate<1.5"(ASTM C 131) 200 ASTM C 781CTM 523) LA Rattler-larger coarse aggregate 1-3"(ASTM C 535) 250 Flexural strength of concrete(simple beam wl center point 85 Durability index(CTM 229) 200 loading,ASTM 293/CTM 523) Cleanness value of coarse aggregate(CTM 227) 210 Non shrink grout cubes(23,ASTM C 109/C 1107) 25 Unit weight of aggregate(CTM 212) 50 Drying shrinkage(four readings,up to 90 days,3 bars,ASTM 400 Soundness magnesium(ASTM C 88) 225 C 157) Soundness sodium 650 ASPHALT CONCRETE(HMA) Uncompacted void content—fine aggregate(CTM 234) 130 Extraction by ignition oven,percent asphalt(ASTM D 150 Flat&elongated particles in coarse aggregate(CTM 235) 215 63071CTM 382) Percent of crushed particles(CTM 205) 135 Ignition oven correction/correlation values quote Organic impurities in concrete sand(CTM 213) 60 Extraction by centrifuge,percent asphalt(ASTM D 2172) 150 Specific gravity—coarse aggregate(CTM 206) 100 Gradation of extracted aggregate(ASTM D 54441CTM 202) 135 Specific gravity—fine aggregate(CTM 207) 125 Stabil ometer val ue(CTM 366) 265 Apparent specific gravity of fine aggregate(CTM 208) 130 Bituminous mixture preparation(CTM 304) 80 Moisture content of aggregates by oven drying(CTM 226) 40 Moisture content of asphalt(CTM 370) 60 Gay lumps,friable particles(ASTM C 142) 175 Bulk specific gravity—molded specimen or cores(ASTM D 55 MASONRY 11881 CTM 308) Mortar cylinders(2"by 4",ASTM C 780) 25 Maximum density-Hveem(CTM 308) 200 Grout prisms(3"by 6",ASTM C 1019) 25 Theoretical maximum density and specific gravity of HMA 130 Masonry cores compression,<-6"diameter(testing only,ASTM 40 (CTM 309) C 42) 5 METHOD $!TEST METHOD WEST CMU compression to size 8"x 8"x 16"(3 required,ASTM C 45 REINFORCING STEEL 140) Rebar tensile test,up to No.10(ASTM A 370) 45 CMU moisture content,absorption&unit weight(6 required, 40 ASTM C 140) Rebar tensile test,No.11&over(ASTM A 370) 100 CMU linear drying shrinkage(ASTM C 426) 175 Rebar bend test,up to No.11(ASTM A 370) 45 CMU grouted prisms(compression test:8"x 8"x 16",ASTM E 180 STEEL 447 C 1314) Tensile strength,:100,000 pounds axial load(ASTM A 370) 45 CMU grouted prisms(compression test>8"x 8"x 16",ASTM 250 Prestressing wire,tension(ASTM A 416) 150 E 447 C 1314) Sample preparation(cutting) 50 Masonry core-shear,Title 24(test only) 70 SPRAY APPLIED FIREPROOFING BRICK Unit weight(Density,ASTM E 605) 60 Compression(cost for each,5 required,ASTM C 67) 40 SLAB-ON-GRADE MOISTURE EMISSION KIT Moisture test kit(excludes labor to perform test,ASTM E 1907) 60 EQUIPMENT,SUPPLIES&MATERIALS $/UNIT $/UNIT 1/4"Grab plates 5 each Lockable equipment box 15 day 1/4"Tubing(bonded) 0.55 foot Magnahelic gauge 15 day 1/4"Tubing(single) 0.35 foot Manometer 25 day 318"Tubing,clear vinyl 0.55 foot Mileage 0.575 mile 4-Gas meter(RKI Eagle or similar) 120 day Nitrile gloves 20 pair Airflow meter and purge pump(200 cc/min) 50 day Nuclear moisture and density gauge 88 day Box of 24 soil drive-sample rings 120 box Pachometer 25 day Brass sample tubes 10 each pH/Conductivity/Temperature meter 55 day Caution tape(1000-foot roll) 20 each Photo-Ionization Detector(PID) 110 day Combination lock or padlock 11 each Pump,Typhoon 2 or 4 stage 50 day Compressed air tank and regulator 50 day QED bladder pump w/QED control box 160 day Concrete coring machine(6-inch-dia) 150 day Resistivity field meter&pins 50 day Consumables(gloves,rope,soap,tape,etc.) 35 day Slip/Threaded Cap,2-inch or 4-inch diameter, 15 each Core sample boxes 11 each PVC Schedule 40 Crack monitor 25 each Slope inclinometer 50 day Cutoff saws,reciprocating,electric(Saws Al) 75 day Soil sampling T-handle(Encore) 10 day Disposable bailers 12 each Soil sampling tripod 35 day Disposable bladders 10 each Stainless steel bailer 40 day Dissolved oxygen meter 45 day Submersible pump,10 gpm,high powered 160 day DOT 55-gallon containment drum with lid 65 each Grunfos 2-inch with controller Double-ring infiltrometer 125 day Submersible pump/transfer pump,10-25 gpm 50 day Dual-stage interface probe 80 day Survey/fence stakes 8 each GEM 2000 130 day TedarO bags 18 each Generator,portable gasoline fueled,3,500 watts 90 day Traffic cones(<_25)/1:barricades(single lane) 50 day Global Positioning System(GPS) 80 day Turbidity meter 70 day Hand auger set 90 day TyvekO suit(each) 18 each HDPE safety fence(:100 feet) 40 roll Vapor sampling box 45 day Horiba U-51 water quality meter 135 day Vehicle usage 12 hour In-situ level troll 500(each) 90 day VelociCalc 35 day In-situ troll 9500,low flow water sampling 150 day Visqueen(20'x 100') 100 roll Water level indicator(electronic well sounder) 60 day <300 feet deep well Well service truck usage 200 day Other specialized geotechnical and environmental testing&monitoring equipment are available,and priced per site 6 TERMS&CONDITIONS ■ Expiration: For all classifications except those subject ■ Invoicing: Invoices are rendered monthly, payable to prevailing wage,this fee schedule is effective through upon receipt in United States dollars. A service charge June 30, 2017 after which remaining work will be billed of 1'/-percent per month will be charged for late at then-current rates. payment. ■ Proposal Expiration: Proposals are valid for at least ■ Client Disclosures: Client agrees to provide all 30 days, subject to change after 30 days, unless information in Client's possession about actual or otherwise stated in the attached proposal. possible presence of buried utilities and hazardous ■ Prevailing Wages: Our fees for prevailing wage work materials on the project site, prior to fieldwork, and are subject to change at any time based upon the agrees to reimburse Leighton for all costs related to project advertised date, and changes in California unanticipated discovery of utilities and/or hazardous prevailing wage laws or wage rates. Prevailing wage materials. Client is also responsible for providing safe time accrued will include portal to portal travel time. and legal access to the project site for all Leighton field personnel. ■ Overtime: Overtime for field personnel will be charged ■ Earth Material Samples: Quoted testing unit rates are at 1.5 times basic hourly rates when exceeding 8 hours for soil and/or rock (earth) samples free of hazardous up to 12 hours per 24 hour interval, and 2 times basic materials. Additional costs will accrue beyond these hourly rates when exceeding 12 hours in 24 hours or on standard testing unit rates for handling, testing and/or Sunday, and 3 times basic hourly rates on California disposing of soil and/or rock containing hazardous official holidays. materials. Hazardous materials will be returned to the ■ Expert Witness Time: Expert witness deposition and site or the site owner's designated representative at testimony will be charged at 2 times hourly rates listed additional cost not included in listed unit rates. on the previous pages, with a minimum charge of four Standard turn-around time for geotechnical-laboratory hours per day. test results is 10 working days. Samples will be stored for 2 months, after which they will be discarded. Prior ■ Minimum Field Hourly Charges: For Field Technician documented notification is required if samples need to Special Inspectors or Material Testing Services: be stored for a longer time. A monthly storage fee of 4 hours: Cancellation of inspections not canceled by $10 per bag and$5 per sleeve or tube will be applied. 4:00 p.m. on preceding day (No charge if Quoted unit rates are only for earth materials sampled cancellation is made before 4:00 p.m. of the in the United States. There may be additional cost for preceding work day.) handling imported samples. 8 hours: Over 4-hour working day, or begins before ■ Construction Material Samples: After all designated noon and extends into afternoon 28-day breaks for a given sample set meet specified ■ Outside Direct Costs: Heavy equipment, compressive or other client-designated strength, all subcontractor fees and expenses, project-specific "hold" cylinders or specimens will be automatically permits and/or licenses, project-specific supplemental disposed of, unless specified in writing prior to the 28- insurance, travel, subsistence, project-specific parking day break. All other construction materials will be charges,shipping,reproduction,and other reimbursable disposed of after completion of testing and reporting. expenses will be invoiced at cost plus 20%, unless billed directly to and paid by client. 7 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERING, SURVEY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and David Evans and Associates, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$100,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of $100,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), for additional Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services, for a total Agreement amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000). 4. Exhibit "B" to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor John C. Hogan CEO /Assistant Secretary ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Gavin Powell, Associate APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT David Evans and Associates, Inc. Attn: Gavin Powell, P.E., LEED AP 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 951.294.9346 gpowell@deainc.com PM Initials` Date: 2 ATTACHMENT A Payment Rates and Schedule 3 Q � O Schedule of Hourly Billing Rates Rates Effective through September 30,2016* Office Staff: Principal $225.00 Project Manager $185.00 Professional Engineer $170.00 Professional Land Surveyor $160.00 Professional Landscape Architect $160.00 Professional Planner $160.00 Survey Analyst $140.00 Civil Engineering Designer $130.00 Irrigation Auditor $125.00 Land/Environmental Planner $120.00 Landscape Designer/Irrigation Designer $115.00 CADD Drafter $100.00 Clerical $85.00 Note: Authorized overtime will be charged at 1.5 times the above rate. 1-Person Survey Crew $150.00 2-Person Survey Crew $240.00 3-Person Survey Crew $345.00 Note: Per union agreement,there is a 4-,6-and 8-hour minimum charge for field survey work. Reimbursable Expenses: Client shall pay the costs, plus 15%,for any applicable governmental fees,title company charges,subconsultant fees, outside vendor reproduction costs, in-house reproduction costs, mileage, and delivery or messenger services incurred on Client's behalf. `rates subject to annual increase 4 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND DOKKEN ENGINEERING ENGINEERING, SURVEY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Dokken Engineering, a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$100,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of $100,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), for additional Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services, for a total Agreement amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000). 4. Exhibit "B" to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA DOKKEN ENGINEERING (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Richard T. Liptak, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Cathy Chan, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Dokken Engineering Attn: Mike Roberts, PE Two Better Word Circle, Suite 120 Temecula, CA 92590 951.506.8895 mroberts@dokkenengineering.com jmadrid@dokkenengineering.com PM Initials: Date: t 2 ATTACHMENT A Payment Rates and Schedule 3 DQKKEN ENGINEERING Transportation Solutionsfroin Concept to Construction RATE SCHEDULE Effective through May 37,2077 Professional and supporting staff services will be billed at the following hourly billing rates: MANAGEMENT Principal $250.00-$325.00 Project Manager $185.00-$250.00 QA/QC Manager $185.00-$250.00 DESIGN Senior Engineer $150.00-$250.00 Associate Engineer $105.00-$155.00 Assistant Engineer $75.00-$105.00 Senior CAD/Detailer $100.00-$160.00 CAD/Detailer $70.00-$1 15.00 Engineering Technician $65.00-$105.00 ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Manager $185.00-$225.00 Senior Environmental Planner $120.00-$185.00 Associate Environmental Planner $85.00-$125.00 Environmental Planner $65.00-$95.00 RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way Manager $125.00-$155.00 Senior Right of Way Agent/Specialist $125.00-$155.00 Right of Way Agent/Specialist $100.00-$125.00 Right of Way Administrator/GIS Technician $75.00-$100.00 SURVEYING Professional Land Surveyor $125.00-$195.00 * 1 Man Survey Crew $185.00-$225.00 * 2 Man Survey Crew $225.00-$275.00 Office Surveyor $85.00-$115.00 CONSTRUCTION Construction Manager $150.00-$250.00 Resident Engineer $110.00-$175.00 Office Engineer $110.00-$175.00 * Senior Inspector-Day $125.00-$175.00 * Senior Inspector-Night/Saturday/OT $1 45.00-$195.00 * Senior Inspector-Sunday/Holiday $165.00-$225.00 * Inspector-Day $125.00-$175.00 * Inspector-Night/Saturday/OT $145.00-$195.00 * Inspector-Sunday/Holiday $165.00-$225.00 Ordinary supplies and equipment are included in the above hourly rates. The following are considered project-specific items and their cost will be added at the following rates: Construction Vehicle/Truck $80/day Survey Equipment w/Truck $25/hour Outside Reproduction Actual Cost Permit Fees/Public Notice Advertisements Actual Cost Record Search Fees/Mapping Fees/Title Reports Actual Cost Room and Equipment Rentals Actual Cost Traffic Control Actual Cost Utility Potholing Actual Cost *Classification subject to California Prevailing Wage 110 Blue Ravine Road,Suite 200,Folsom,CA 956304713 • Tele:916.858.0612 • Fax:916.858.0E�43 • www.dokkenengineering.com 4 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. ENGINEERING, SURVEY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of June 28, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Michael Baker International, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," in the amount of$100,000. b. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into the First Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services," due to name and ownership change of said company. C. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2017, increase the payment in the amount of $100,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The Second Amendment amount shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), for additional Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services, for a total Agreement amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000). 4. Exhibit "B" to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Darin P. Johnson, Vice President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Michael A. Tylman, Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Michael Baker International, Inc. Attn: John Tanner, PE 40810 Country Center Dr., Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92491 951.676.8042 jtanner@mbakerintl.com PM Initials_ Date: COW 2 ATTACHMENT A Payment Rates and Schedule 3 Michael Baker I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Effective January 2016 through December 2016 OFFICE PERSONNEL $/Hour SeniorPrincipal.......................................................................................................................................$285.00 Principal.......- - - - - -- - - - - ... ........ ____................ .....260.00 ProjectDirector.........................................................................................................................................245.00 ProgramManager.....................................................................................................................................235.00 Senior Project Manager------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------225.00 ProjectManager.......................................................................................................................................208.00 StructuralEngineer...................................................................................................................................205.00 TechnicalManager...................................................................................................................................195.00 SeniorEngineer........................................................................................................................................178.00 SeniorPlanner..........................................................................................................................................175.00 ElectricalEngineer....................................................................................................................................170.00 Biologist....................................................................................................................................................168.00 LandscapeArchitect.................................................................................................................................164.00 SeniorGIS Analyst...................................................................................................................................156.00 ProjectEngineer......................................................................................................................................A 55.00 ProjectPlanner.........................................................................................................................................155.00 EnvironmentalSpecialist...........................................................................................................................152.00 Design Engineer/Senior Designer/Survey Analyst....................................................................................150.00 GISAnalyst...............................................................................................................................................135.00 Designer/Planner......................................................................................................................................130.00 ProjectCoordinator...................................................................................................................................125.00 GraphicArtist------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.110.00 Environmental Analyst/Staff Planner------.__............................._......-..-------.--..................-............----------.112.00 DesignTechnician....................................................................................................................................112.00 Assistant Engineer/Planner.......................................................................................................................104.00 PermitProcessor........................................................................................................................................93.00 Engineering AidlPlanning Aid.....................................................................................................................84.00 OfficeSupport/Clerical...............................................................................................................................70.00 SURVEY PERSONNEL 2-Person Survey Crew............................................................................................................................$265.00 1-Person Survey Crew..............................................................................................................................170.00 LicensedSurveyor....................................................................................................................................188.00 FieldSupervisor........................................................................................................................................178.00 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL Principal Construction Manager.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------$235.00 ConstructionManager...............................................................................................................................215.00 ContractManager.....................................................................................................................................180.00 ResidentEngineer--------------------------- ----------------r. -------------------------..---------------------------------....180.00 Construction Inspector(Prevailing Wage).................................................................................................175.00 Construction Inspector(Non-Prevailing Wage).........................................................................................145.00 Field Office Engineer........................................................... ...............................120.00 ConstructionTechnician.............................................................................................................................97.00 ContractSupport.........................................................................................................................................80,00 Note: Blueprinting, reproduction, messenger service and other direct expenses will be charged as an additional cost plus 15%. A Sub-consultant Management Fee of fifteen-percent (15%) will be added to the direct cost of all sub- consultant services to provide forthe cost of administration,sub-consultant consultation and insurance. Vehicle mileage will be charged as an additional cost at the IRS approved rate. 4 Item No . 16 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve an Increase to the Contingency of the Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement), PW03-05 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Jon Salazar, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve an increase to the contingency of the Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement), PW03-05, in the amount of $46,702.59, from the project construction account; 2. Increase the City Manager change order approval authority by the same amount ($46,702.59). BACKGROUND: On January 8, 2013, the City Council awarded a Contract to Granite Construction Company in the amount of $4,770,079, and authorized the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed a 10% contingency of $477,007.90. On May 13, 2014, the City Council approved a contingency increase in the amount of $300,000 to cover the cost of two large change orders totaling $426,395, and to have sufficient reserve for any additional change orders. The new bridge was opened to traffic on May 8, 2014. Forty-one change orders totaling $715,756.57 were written for this project leaving a balance of $61,251.33 in the project contingency, with the previously approved $300,000 contingency increase. Seven of the forty- one change orders generated on this project had delay days associated with them which, pursuant to the specifications, allows the Contractor to be compensated for additional costs incurred due to the extended Contract time. The City and Contractor mutually agreed to pay these costs separately in a single change order that included all of the delay costs for which a daily rate was negotiated. The total cost of the delay days was $107,953.92. The requested $46,702.59 contingency increase along with the remaining $61,251.33 balance will allow this change order to be processed. FISCAL IMPACT: The Main Street Bridge Over Murrieta Creek (Replacement) was budgeted within the City's Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2014-18, and is funded with Capital Project Reserves, Development Impact Fees (Street Improvements), and a Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant. There are sufficient funds in account 210.165.743 to cover the contingency increase request. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Location 2. Project Description r i� f� • I„f• 'f y ` , y F � Irk OP { Y � Feet D, 2010 0 60 1 1 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2014-18 MAIN STREET BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK (REPLACEMENT) Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes the design and construction of a new bridge and approach roadways which meet current safety standards and compatibility with the City's circulation element and the planned Murrieta Creek Improvement Project. This project also includes removal of the existing bridge, pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk and storm drain facilities, and environmental studies and mitigation. The new bridge will meet the United States Army Corps of Engineer's (USACE) Creek Improvement Project needs, and the cost will count towards the City's contribution to the USACE Project. Benefit J Core Value: This project improves traffic safety and circulation. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The design to replace the existing bridge is complete and environmental clearance has been obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project is estimated to be completed by April 2014. Department: Public Works—Account No. 210.165.743 Level: 1 Fiscal Year Project Cost: Prior Years Ended 2013 2013-14 Actual Carryover Adopted 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration $ 391,260 $ 142,466 $ 533,726 Construction $ 6,100,000 $ 6,100,000 Construction Engineering $ 12,391 $ 338,119 $ 350,510 Design $ 698,915 $ 5,222 $ 704,137 MSHCP $ 10,242 $ 94,757 $ 104,999 Totals $ 1,112,808 1 $ 6,680,564 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - 1 $ 7,793,372 Fiscal Year Source of Funds: Prior Years Ended 2013 2013-14 Actual Carryover Adopted 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Capital Project Reserves $ 41,729 $ 41,729 DIF(street Improvements) $ 1,071,079 $ 430,054 $ 1,501,133 NBP $ 6,250,510 $ 6,250,510 Total Funding: $ 1,112,808 $ 6,680,564 1 $ - I $ - Is - Is - Is - 1 $ 7,793,372 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 $ 10,200 1 $ 10,404 1 $ 10,612 1 $ 10,824 1 $ 11,041 62 Item No . 17 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (SY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Receive and File Temporary Street Closure for The Gathering —A Cultural Night Concert Scheduled for August 21, 2016 PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following special event in Old Town: THE GATHERING —A CULTURAL NIGHT CONCERT BACKGROUND: The Gathering — A Cultural Night Concert special event scheduled for Sunday, August 21, 2016, necessitates the physical closure of all or portions of certain streets within the Old Town area. The closures are necessary to facilitate the events and protect participants and viewers. The Cultural Night Concert will be held at the Town Square and will consist of local bands and artists from the Temecula area presenting a learning and informative concert about the Garifuna music of Central America. Approximately 1000 participants are anticipated. The street closures are scheduled as follows: Main Street 5:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. from the easterly driveway edge of 28636 Old Town Sunday, August 21, 2016 Front Street at Rosa's Cantina to Mercedes Street Mercedes Street 5:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. between Fourth Street and Third Street Sunday, August 21, 2016 The street closure location and the layout for The Gathering - A Cultural Night Concert event is shown on Exhibits `A' and Exhibit `B' attached hereto. Mercedes Street traffic for the event will be detoured via Third and Fourth Streets. The Old Town Parking Garage will be open with ample free parking available to the public during the event. Street closures are allowed by the California Vehicle Code upon approval by the local governing body for certain conditions. Under Vehicle Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways," local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for, among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing." Chapter 12.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Parades and Special Events, provides standards and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way and authorizes the City Council or City Manager to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these events. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of police services, as well as services provided by the City Public Works Maintenance Division (for providing, placing and retrieving of necessary warning and advisory devices), will be paid by the private sponsors of this event. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit `A' 2 Exhibit `B' i 15 O� �a co or s THE GA THER/NG — A CUL TURA L NIGHT CONCERT (MAIN STREET AND MERCEDES STREET) SUNDAY, AUGUST 21, 2016 LEGEND STREET CLOSURE BARRICADE EXHIBIT 'A City hall Entrance F + T Q - — O I n e Shapeshifters Entertainment"The Gathering" A Cultural Night Concert 3 Q n v m c Stage (top of stairs) e ' t^ d U _ M - - m Security [Security I Dj set up station Sponsor box Sponsor box C o M 4. o N o h c ,rt °1 0' V) c Sponsor box Sponsor box VFontain Fenced Fenced Entrance �a ay EXHIBITS' �` TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT Item No . 18 ACTION MINUTES June 14, 2016 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:41 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 24 Approve the Action Minutes of May 24, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of May 24, 2016. 25 Approve Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 That the Board of Directors receive and file the Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 26 Approve an Agreement with VisionOne, Inc. for Theater Ticketing Software Services at the Old Town Temecula Community Theater for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 That the Board of Directors approve an Agreement with VisionOne, Inc. for ticketing software services for the Old Town Temecula Community Theater, for a three-year term and authorize annual payments not to exceed $40,000. CSD Action Minutes 061416 1 CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:44 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 061416 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 14, 2016— 7:00 PM 6:00 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation. The City Council will meet in Closed Session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) with respect to the matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880. At 6:00 PM Mayor Naggar called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:08 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Erin Lee Invocation: Sylvester Scott of Temecula Baha'i Community Flag Salute: David Fahrion ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Achievement to Abby Reinke Elementary School 2016 Odyssey of the Mind Team Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Riverside County Principal of the Year Marc Horton of Great Oak High School PUBLIC COMMENTS • Rebecca Weersing addressed the City Council. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Action Minutes 061416 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of May 24, 2016 and May 26, 2016 Budget Workshop - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of May 24, 2016; 2.2 Approve the action minutes of the May 26, 2016 Budget Workshop. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-1) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken and Rahn with Council Member Naggar abstaining due to reimbursement, Check #176638 in the amount of $142, for City related computer software. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2016. Action Minutes 061416 2 5 Approve Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council receive and file the Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter March 31, 2016 6 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates for Research and Community Outreach - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates for research and community outreach. 7 Adopt Ordinance 16-05 to Adopt Development Code Amendment Establishing Performance Standards for Businesses Manufacturing Alcoholic Beverages with Retail Sales and a Tasting Room (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 16-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(B)(3) Action Minutes 061416 3 8 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc. for Temecula Police Motorcycle Repair and Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc., in the amount of $12,500, for Temecula Police motorcycle repair and maintenance, for a total agreement amount of $42,500 for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 9 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Temecula and Foundation for Senior Care for Transportation and Parking Lot Related Services at the Mary Phillips Senior Center - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Foundation for Senior Care for the provision of transportation services provided by the Foundation and utilizing the City facility, Mary Phillips Senior Center parking lot, as a connectivity destination for pick-up and drop-off of Foundation clients. 10 Approve the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Helixstorm for Technology Services to Include but not Limited to Virtualization, Network, and System Administration - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Helixstorm, in the amount of $100,000 for Technology-related services, for a total agreement amount of$200,000. 11 Approve the First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement with T&D Communications for Cabling Services - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement with T&D Communications, in the amount of $10,000 for cabling services, for a total agreement amount of$40,000. Action Minutes 061416 4 12 Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Agreement with Innovative Document Solutions for Fiscal Years 2015-16 through 2018-19 for Canon Copiers and Printers - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Services Agreement with Innovative Document Solutions (IDS) to extend the Term to June 30, 2019; to increase the authorized annual contract amount for Fiscal Years 2015-16 through 2018-19 to $110,000; thereby, amending the total Agreement amount to $761,600; and to amend the Payment Rates and Schedule (Exhibit B); 12.2 Approve an additional appropriation to the Minor Maintenance Services Agreement in the amount of$20,000 for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 13 Approve Purchase and Installation Agreement and Related Budget Transfer with Bibliotheca for the SmartServe 1000 Self-Service Checkout Station at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve Purchase and Installation Agreement with Bibliotheca in an amount not to exceed $30,000; 13.2 Approve a Budget Transfer of $4,652 from TCSD Operating Budget (190.180.999.5250) to the Information Technology — Library Operating Budget (320.620.999.5610), in accordance with Budget Policy II.C. 14 Approve Fiscal Year 2016-17 CR&R Schedule of Solid Waste and Recycling Rates Pursuant to Franchise Agreement with CR&R, Inc. - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 Action Minutes 061416 5 15 Approve an Agreement with NRG EV Services LLC for the Installation of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station at Sixth Street Parking Lot - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council approve the Charging Services Agreement between the City and NRG EV Services LLC ("EVgo") for the 6th Street Parking Lot and authorize the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the City. 16 Approve an Agreement with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc. for Weed Abatement Services for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc., in the amount of$40,000, for Weed Abatement Services. 17 Award a Construction Contract to Los Angeles Traffic Signal Transportation, Inc. for the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Signal Modification, PW15-03 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Award a Construction Contract to Los Angeles Traffic Signal Transportation, Inc., in the amount of $85,800, for the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Signal Modification, PW15-03; 17.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of$8,580, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 17.3 Make a finding that the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Traffic Signal Modification is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 18 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co. for the Annual Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets for Fiscal Year 2015-16, PW15-10 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. Action Minutes 061416 6 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co., in the amount of $672,901.24, for the Annual Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets, for Fiscal Year 2015-16, PW15-10; 18.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount, $67,290.12; 18.3 Make a finding that the Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 19 Approve an Agreement with Aztec Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Janitorial for Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with Aztec Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Janitorial, in the amount of $73,652.52, to provide Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters for Fiscal Year 2016-17; 19.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,365.25, which is approximately 10% of the annual amount. 20 Approve a Three-Year Agreement with Excel Landscape, Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve a Three-Year Agreement with Excel Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $2,358,869 annually, for a total three-year Agreement amount of $7,076,607, for Landscape Maintenance Services; 20.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed the annual contingency amount of$353,830.35, for a total three-year contingency amount of $1,061,491.05, which is approximately 15% of the Agreement amount. Action Minutes 061416 7 21 Approve an Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc., for Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc., in the amount of $500,000, to provide Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 22 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim for the Purchase of Five Trucks for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim, in the amount of $8,372.40, which represents sales tax on the five new trucks for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 23 Approve Amendments to Five Annual Agreements for Various On-Call Traffic Engineering-Related Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 That the City Council approve Amendments to Five Annual Agreements, in the amounts specified, for Various On-Call Traffic Engineering-Related Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17, as follows: Altec Industries, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Counts Unlimited, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Pacific Striping, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Willdan Engineering First Amendment $30,000 RECESS At 7:46 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:46 PM, the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting recessed and convened as the Joint City Council, Community Services District and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. At 8:48 PM, the joint meeting adjourned and City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. Action Minutes 061416 8 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: COUNCIL MEMBERS/DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) 29 Approve Fiscal Years 2017-21 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Adopt Fiscal Year 2016-17 CIP and Annual Operating Budgets for the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (SARDA) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council/Board of Directors: 29.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2021 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 29.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PRELIMINARY ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS Action Minutes 061416 9 29.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 16-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2017-2021, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17, ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 29.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 29.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 29.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 JOINT MEETING ADJOURNMENT RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 30 City Council Travel/Conference Report BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT Action Minutes 061416 10 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported there were no reportable actions in regards to the Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT At 8:49 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. ********** Adjourned in Memory of the Orlando Victims ********** Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 061416 11 Item No . 19 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Community Services Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve a Sponsorship Agreement with Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. (S.A.F.E.) to Provide Quality Services for Children, Youth, and Families PREPARED BY: Yvette Martinez, Sr. Recreation Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the Sponsorship Agreement with Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc., for financial support in the amount of $10,000 and approximately $1,200 of in-kind facility rental fees, so that S.A.F.E. can continue to provide our community with quality services for children, youth, and families who have experiences or are at risk of abuse and violence. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has been sponsoring S.A.F.E. for the past twelve years to assist in the way they provide social services to members of our community. Their mission is to serve children, youth and families who have experienced or are at risk of abuse and violence in our community. In the last year, S.A.F.E. served 1,486 clients through their programs listed below: • Basic Needs Assistance — This service provision has proven to be a keystone in the agency's service delivery, because these basic needs address and alleviate immediate day to day family needs such as food, gasoline, emergency hotel stays and critical childcare/medication, etc.. These expenses are imperative and critical to a family's stabilization and reduction of stress so that they can focus on programs that will enable their children, and ultimately the family, to be successful. S.A.F.E. has seen an increase in the need for these types of services along with assistance to make the next steps towards family safety. Financial assistance is also available via the Southwest Family Justice Center through their staff housed at that facility. • Case Management — This is a core service of S.A.F.E. Family case management helps each family to identify unique struggles, problems or issues, including family strengths. The family and Family Care Coordinator together design a plan with goals and objectives for each individual family member to work on. Some case management services are intensive and require multiple meetings and services over several years to address family crisis, while others are less intensive requiring 3-6 months of services. Plans are designed to assist in remediating the issues and build upon the identified strengths of each family member with the ultimate goal of building family stability. • Domestic Violence Services — S.A.F.E. provides domestic violence assistance out of the Family Justice Center (FJC). This is the primary location where victims of domestic violence are able to receive comprehensive crisis services from multiple agencies under one roof. S.A.F.E. has a designated staff person on site to assist clients with restraining orders, court accompaniment, case management, shelter referrals and placement. S.A.F.E.'s service provision also extends to offer a 10-week domestic violence education group for victims. Their goal is to assist victims in safely making decisions for themselves and their families, so that returning to the abuser is not a viable option. Services to victims of domestic violence are provided through community partners such as victim witness, law enforcement and other non-profits. Classes offered with this service include DV Classes and Self- Empowerment in Employment and Finances. Clients in these classes learn life skills to help them become more independent and cover such topics as financial safety planning, budgeting, and resume writing. • Emergency Assistance — Families and children escaping violent situations need emergency help with food, shelter, medication, gas and other things to get through on an emergency basis. • Parent Project — Learning to make the right decisions is a natural part of growing up. Sometimes, older children in households are given increased responsibility to help parent and engage in decisions that are not often good. When a child chooses to engage in destructive behavior such as skipping or dropping out of school, drug or alcohol use, drinking and driving or gang involvement, the consequence may be addiction, a ruined life or worse. This parenting program is designed for families with challenging pre-teens and teens that are actively engaging in "at risk" behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, school truancy and teen dating violence, to name a few. S.A.F.E. staff partners with the Temecula Police, to offer this program two times per year. • Police Activities League (P.A.L.) — P.A.L. is a youth violence prevention and intervention program that provides educational and recreational activities for youth ages 5 to 17 accompanied by volunteer law enforcement officers. The program is offered in collaboration with the Murrieta and Temecula Police Departments. S.A.F.E. accepts sign-ups year round for the Temecula/Murrieta Police Activities League. The annual fee for Police Activities League membership is $30 which includes a Police Activities League shirt. Fees are negotiable and no one is turned away for inability to pay. • Training and Workshops —S.A.F.E. provides community education, outreach and training. One of the many trainings and workshops offered by S.A.F.E. is a 40 hour Domestic Violence Training class which is required by the State of California for individuals interested in working or volunteering at a Domestic Violence agency. Trainings are scheduled throughout the year. • Resource and Referral — S.A.F.E. provides appropriate resources and referrals to all callers requesting services regardless of issues they are presenting. There are times when S.A.F.E. is not able to provide a direct service; however their trained staff is able, through client assessment to ascertain their needs and then direct them to resources within our community. S.A.F.E. realizes that accessing services can be difficult and frustrating, and they offer options to clients that they may not have considered in maneuvering through the social services network of help. In return for all the services mentioned above, the City is providing the following: • Financial support in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). • Use of the City's Conference Center or Community Recreation Center (CRC) for 4 meetings at 5 hours each for an approximate in-kind value of $1,200 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for Safe Alternatives for Everyone have been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Community Services operating expenditure budget. ATTACHMENTS: Sponsorship Agreement SPONSORSHIP AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND SAFE ALTERNATIVES FOR EVERYONE, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 28th day of June, 2016, by and between the Temecula Community Services District, a community services district (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc (S.A.F.E.), a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonprofit"). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The Nonprofit shall operate and provide social services from a city-owned facility located at 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. b. S.A.F.E. is to provide family case management, referral and resource support, public education workshops, family assessment and teen violence prevention. C. The funds are to be used to offer needed services for the citizens of the Temecula Valley dealing with violence, abuse, and the threat of violence and abuse inflcting great harm on children and the community as listed in Exhibit A. 2. TERM This Agreement shall commence on June 28, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. CONSIDERATION a. The City shall provide the Nonprofit with in-kind promotional services at an amount not to exceed $1,200 as listed in Exhibit B. b. The City shall also provide Community Support Funding in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) cash which will be allocated to fund the services provided to our community members in need. G. The Nonprofit shall support economies of the City by promoting and utilizing local businesses (e.g. local food vendors, resuatrants, wineries, crafters, etc.) first when competitive and practicable. 4. INDEMNIFICATION The Nonprofit shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, 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 the Nonprofit's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement. 5. INSURANCE The Nonprofit shall secure and maintain from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement an insurance policy of comprehensive general liability against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by June 28, 2016, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Recipient owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Recipient has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: Two million ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the NonProfit; products and completed operations of the Recipient; premises owned, occupied or used by the Nonprofit; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Nonprofit. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Nonprofit's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Nonprofit's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Nonprofit shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Nonproft shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Nonprofit's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 6. GOVERNING LAW The City and the Nonprofit 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. 7. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Nonprofit shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Nonprofit to comply with this section. 8. ASSIGNMENT The Nonprofit shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 9. 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: Mailing Address: Temecula Community Services District Attn: General Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Recipient: Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. (S.A.F.E.) Attn: June Earley, Executive Director 28910 Pujol Street Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 587-3900 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. The Nonprofit shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit shall at all times be under the Nonprofit's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Recipient or any of the Nonprofit's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. The Nonprofit shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to the Nonprofit in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to the Nonprofit as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to the Nonprofit for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to the Nonprofit for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 12. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit and has the authority to bind the Nonprofit to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The General Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES SAFE ALTERNATIVES FOR EVERYONE, INC. DISTRICT (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, TCSD President June Earley, Executive Director ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, Secretary Jan Duran, S.A.F.E. Board President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, General NONPROFIT Counsel Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc June Earley, General Manager 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA. 92590 (951) 587-3900 (951) 587-3902 FAX June@safefamiliesca.org PM Initials: qw Date: EXHIBIT "A" SERVICES PROVIDED BY S.A.F.E. WHICH BENEFIT THE TEMECULA VALLEY COMMUNITY In exchange for the City's Community Support Funding in the amount of $10,000 in cash and $1,200 for in-kind city facility use, S.A.F.E. shall provide the following benefits and services for the citizens of the City of Temecula.. • Basic Needs Assistance — This service provision has proven to be a keystone in the agency's service delivery, because these basic needs address and alleviate immediate day to day family needs such as food, gasoline, emergency hotel stays and critical childcare/medication, etc.. These expenses are imperative and critical to a family's stabilization and reduction of stress so that they can focus on programs that will enable their children, and ultimately the family, to be successful. S.A.F.E. has seen an increase in the need for these types of services along with assistance to make the next steps towards family safety. Financial assistance is also available via the Southwest Family Justice Center through their staff housed at that facility. • Case Management — This is a core service of S.A.F.E. Family case management helps each family to identify unique struggles, problems or issues, including family strengths. The family and Family Care Coordinator together design a plan with goals and objectives for each individual family member to work on. Some case management services are intensive and require multiple meetings and services over several years to address family crisis, while others are less intensive requiring 3-6 months of services. Plans are designed to assist in remediating the issues and build upon the identified strengths of each family member with the ultimate goal of building family stability. • Domestic Violence Services — S.A.F.E. provides domestic violence assistance out of the Family Justice Center (FJC). This is the primary location where victims of domestic violence are able to receive comprehensive crisis services from multiple agencies under one roof. S.A.F.E. has a designated staff person on site to assist clients with restraining orders, court accompaniment, case management, shelter referrals and placement. S.A.F.E.'s service provision also extends to offer a 10-week domestic violence education group for victims. Their goal is to assist victims in safely making decisions for themselves and their families, so that returning to the abuser is not a viable option. Services to victims of domestic violence are provided through community partners such as victim witness, law enforcement and other non-profits. Classes offered with this service include DV Classes and Self- Empowerment in Employment and Finances. Clients in these classes learn life skills to help them become more independent and cover such topics as financial safety planning, budgeting, and resume writing. • Emergency Assistance — Families and children escaping violent situations need emergency help with food, shelter, medication, gas and other things to get through on an emergency basis. • Parent Project — Learning to make the right decisions is a natural part of growing up. Sometimes, older children in households are given increased responsibility to help parent and engage in decisions that are not often good. When a child chooses to engage in destructive behavior such as skipping or dropping out of school, drug or alcohol use, drinking and driving or gang involvement, the consequence may be addiction, a ruined life or worse. This parenting program is designed for families with challenging pre-teens and teens that are actively engaging in "at risk" behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, school truancy and teen dating violence, to name a few. S.A.F.E. staff partners with the Temecula Police, to offer this program two times per year. • Police Activities League (P.A.L.) — P.A.L. is a youth violence prevention and intervention program that provides educational and recreational activities for youth ages 5 to 17 accompanied by volunteer law enforcement officers. The program is offered in collaboration with the Murrieta and Temecula Police Departments. S.A.F.E. accepts sign-ups year round for the Temecula/Murrieta Police Activities League. The annual fee for Police Activities League membership is $30 which includes a Police Activities League shirt. Fees are negotiable and no one is turned away for inability to pay. • Training and Workshops — S.A.F.E. provides community education, outreach and training. One of the many trainings and workshops offered by S.A.F.E. is a 40 hour Domestic Violence Training class which is required by the State of California for individuals interested in working or volunteering at a Domestic Violence agency. Trainings are scheduled throughout the year. • Resource and Referral —S.A.F.E. provides appropriate resources and referrals to all callers requesting services regardless of issues they are presenting. There are times when S.A.F.E. is not able to provide a direct service; however their trained staff is able, through client assessment to ascertain their needs and then direct them to resources within our community. S.A.F.E. realizes that accessing services can be difficult and frustrating, and they offer options to clients that they may not have considered in maneuvering through the social services network of help. EXHIBIT "B" IN-KIND SERVICES ESTIMATED VALUE OF PROMOTIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA The estimated value for in-kind promotional assistance provided by the City for the Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. services is as follows: Item: Value Four 5-hour rentals at the Community Recreation Center or Conference Center at no charge. $1,200 The Community Support Funding of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) cash will help fund the services provided by S.A.F.E. as listed in Exhibit A. Item No . 20 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager (Sr TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Director of Community Services DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve a Sponsorship Agreement with Temecula Sister City Association for Facilities Use and Sponsorship for Student Travel for Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Erica Russo, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Sister City Association totaling $3,500 in staff services, $500 for facilities use, and $2,400 in cash sponsorship for student travel for Fiscal Year 2016-17. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Sister City Association (TSCA) is a non-profit entity that supports the understanding of each other as individuals and as members of the family of nations. That mission is achieved by facilitating cultural, academic, and vocational exchanges that bridge the City of Temecula and its two sister cities (Daisen, Japan and Leidschendam- Voorburg, the Netherlands) to enrich business relationships and friendships, and foster mutual respect. The City directly supports these goals via the Temecula Community Services District, which provides both monetary and in-kind support as described above to facilitate student travel scholarships, travel for City officials, official events for visiting dignitaries and students, and facility usage and staff support for two TSCA cultural events each year. In exchange, the Temecula Sister City Association provides development and implementation of functions, services and events, including coordination of events, dinners and TSCA gifts. Additionally, the organization provides student exchange scholarships, teacher stipends for student exchanges, and transportation for official dignitaries, as well as sponsorship recognition for the City on all print, broadcast, and online media. In its more than two decades of existence, this program has supported the exchange of 198 students and 182 adults between Temecula and Daisen, and 462 students and 126 adults between Temecula and Leidschendam-Voorburg, in addition to providing countless opportunities for cultural exchange and education in all three cities. FISCAL IMPACT: Student sponsorships of $2400 have been budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sister City expenditure line item. ATTACHMENTS: Sponsorship Agreement SPONSORSHIP AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 28th day of June, 2016, by and between the Temecula Community Services District, a community services district (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Temecula Sister City Association, a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonprofit"). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The Nonprofit shall operate the Sister City Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Program"). b. The program includes the facilitation of sister city travels, Japanese and Dutch cultural programs; sponsorship of student travelers and other cultural exchanges. C. Alcohol may be served. d. The City desires to be a Supporting Sponsor of the Program by providing Community Support Funding and City Support Services. 2. TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. CONSIDERATION a. In exchange for providing the Nonprofit with in-kind city-support services valued at an amount not to exceed $3500 and in-kind facilities usage valued at an amount not to exceed $500, as listed in Exhibit B, the City of Temecula shall be designated as a Supporting Sponsor of the Program. As Supporting Sponsor the City shall receive sponsor benefits as listed in Exhibit A. In the event that City support services exceed $3500, the Nonprofit may seek City authorization for payment above that amount. b. The City of Temecula shall also provide Community Support Funding in the amount of $2400 cash which will be allocated to pay for travel scholarships, also listed in Exhibit B. G. The Nonprofit shall support economies of the City of Temecula by promoting and utilizing local businesses (e.g. local food vendors, restaurants, wineries, crafters, etc.) first when competitive and practicable. d. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, Nonprofit shall submit a timeline showing the milestone dates that each Nonprofit marketing activity, including, but not limited to, public relations and media schedules, marketing measures and other promotional activities, will occur. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the Nonprofit makes a good faith effort to operate the Sister City Program. 4. WRITTEN REPORT Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Program, the Nonprofit shall prepare and submit to the Community Services Director a written report evaluating the Program, its attendance, media coverage, and description of the materials in which the City has listed as a Supporting Sponsor. In addition, complete financial statements including a balance sheet, income statement and budget to actual comparison report of the Program must be included in such a written report. 5. FINANCIAL REVIEW The Nonprofit shall provide complete financial statements including a balance sheet, income statement and budget to actual comparison report of the Program. This financial review of the Program should be completed and submitted to the City no later than December 31, 2016. The financial review shall provide a general summary report on how funds were expended and used to benefit Temecula Valley residents and shall include documentation, including but not limited to copies of invoices, receipts and cancelled checks to support the Sponsorship Funding. The financial documentation is subject to an audit, as determined by City staff. 6. PERMITS The Nonprofit shall file applications for a Temporary Use Permit and Special Program Permit with the City no later than thirty (30) days prior to the first day of the Program. The City retains its governmental jurisdiction to determine whether to issue the permits and the nature and scope of Conditions of Approval. The Nonprofit shall comply with all conditions of approval of the permits. The Nonprofit shall comply with all conditions of approval for the Temporary Use Permit, the Special Program Permit, or any other City-issued permits. Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval of such permits shall constitute a default of this Agreement and is grounds for termination of this Agreement. 7. MEETING ATTENDANCE The Nonprofit shall attend all City pre-event planning meetings and event recap meetings if warranted. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Nonprofit shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, 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 the Nonprofit's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement. 9. INSURANCE The Nonprofit shall secure and maintain from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement an insurance policy of comprehensive general liability against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by July 1, 2016, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Recipient has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: Two million ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Consultant employs any employees. Consultant warrants and represents to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency that it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Nonprofit; products and completed operations of the Recipient; premises owned, occupied or used by the Nonprofit; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Nonprofit. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Nonprofit's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Nonprofit's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Nonprofit shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self- insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Nonprofit shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Nonprofit's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. GOVERNING LAW The City and the Nonprofit 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. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Nonprofit shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Nonprofit to comply with this section. 12. ASSIGNMENT The Nonprofit shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 13. 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: Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: General Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Recipient: Temecula Sister City Association Daniel Venne, Treasurer 41911 5th Street#300 Temecula, CA 92590 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. The Nonprofit shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit shall at all times be under the Nonprofit's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Recipient or any of the Nonprofit's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. The Nonprofit shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to the Nonprofit in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to the Nonprofit as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to the Nonprofit for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to the Nonprofit for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 16. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit and has the authority to bind the Nonprofit to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The General Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES Temecula Sister City Association DISTRICT (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, TCSD President Daniel Venne, Treasurer ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, Secretary Jon Lieberg, Co-chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, General NONPROFIT Counsel Temecula Sister City Association Daniel Venne, Treasurer 41911 5t Street#300, Temecula, CA 92590 951-694-1986 Dsv.cPa(aD-verizon.net Acting PM Initials: C&I Date: EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA'S SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS SUPPORTING SPONSOR In exchange for providing the support described in Exhibit B, the City of Temecula shall receive the following benefits: ♦ City of Temecula Logo on Nonprofit Printed Material ♦ City of Temecula Name on all Nonprofit Radio Promotion ♦ City of Temecula Name in all Nonprofit Press Releases ♦ City of Temecula Logo in related Nonprofit Online Communication EXHIBIT "B" ESTIMATED VALUE OF CITY SUPPORT SERVICES AND COSTS The City agrees to provide the following in-kind and monetary support to the Nonprofit: Staff support (In-Kind) $3,500.00 (2) Facility rental opportunities (in-Kind) $500.00 Student travel sponsorships (12 (a)_ $200 each) $2,400.00 TOTAL: $6,400.00 Item No . 21 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Materials and Supplies Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the purchase of miscellaneous materials and supplies from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Fiscal Year 2016-17: ON �Vendor Amount Amount Description of Purchases Allie's Party Rentals $35,000 $35,000 Equipment rental forvarious events Supplies and materials forTCSD Costco $50,000 $50,000 programs and events Supplies and materials forTCSD Smart&Final $35,000 $35,000 programs and events BSN Sports(formerlyTomark) $43,000 $43,000 Sports and gym equipment BACKGROUND: Pursuant to TCSD Resolution No. 15-04, any purchase of supplies and equipment in excess of $30,000 requires the Board of Director's action. Throughout each year, various departments within TCSD purchase supplies and equipment from the same vendors. While no single department purchases over $30,000, the cumulative purchases for the District as a whole from the vendors noted above may exceed this threshold. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Board of Directors authorize the cumulative purchase of miscellaneous materials and supplies that may exceed the $30,000 threshold. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are programmed in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 operating budgets for affected departments. ATTACHMENT: None TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING Item No . 22 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Director of Community Services DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve Temecula Community Services District Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2016-17 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE LEVEL B — RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, SERVICE LEVEL C — PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, SERVICE LEVEL D — RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION, AND SERVICE LEVEL R — EMERGENCY UNPAVED ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; recycling and refuse collection and unpaved road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the City and the City Council serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD. Property owners pay only for the TCSD services used or made available to their property through separate rates and charges on their property tax bill. The Community Services, Parks and Recreation and Service Level A Rates and Charges previously levied by the TCSD were replaced by the City's Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax, approved by the voters as Measure C on March 4, 1997. Although the TCSD continues to operate and maintain the parks and recreational facilities through a cooperative agreement with the City, the actual levy budget for the special tax is scheduled to be considered and approved by the city Council on June 28, 2016. As a result, the TCSD is currently comprised of the following four (4) remaining service levels: 1. Service Level B — Residential Street Lights. Operational, administrative, maintenance and utility costs of residential street lights within the TCSD maintenance system. 2. Service Level C - Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance. Operational, administrative, maintenance and utility costs for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD. 3. Service Level D — Recycling and Refuse Collection. Operational and administrative costs of the recycling and refuse collection services for residential households. 4. Service Level R — Unpaved Road Maintenance. Operational, administrative, construction and maintenance costs for certain unpaved streets in the city. 1. Service Level B — Residential Street Lighting The TCSD Rates and Charges for Service Level B are not proposed to increase from last year's rates. The rate is capped at $25.68 per single family residential. 2. Service Level C — Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance As a result of various property owner elections, there are two of the 29 service zones subject to an annual rate increase. The rate increase is the lesser of: (1) the percentage increase in the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index ("CPI") of All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles- Riverside-Orange County Area, for the previous calendar year (2) 5% The CPI change from Annual 2015 to Annual 2016 was 0.91%. As a result, the following zones will see a slight increase in the rates for Fiscal Year 2016-17. Zone No. and Name 15-16 Rate 16-17 Rate Increase 6 - Woodcrest County $ 104.62 $105.56 $ 0.94 29 - Gallery Portraits $ 373.40 $ 376.80 $ 3.40 3. Service Level D — Residential Recycling and Refuse Service Per the Franchise Agreement with CR&R, the change in CPI, and land-fill tipping fees determine the increase/decrease in the annual Service Level D rate and charge. An increase of $9.88 is proposed to the annual rate and charge for Service Level D from $259.72 to $269.60 per residential unit beginning Fiscal Year 2016-17. The increase is due to a CPI increase of 0.91% and a land-fill tipping fee increase of $0.57, an increase of $11.76 for the Residential Organics Recycling Program, and a decrease of$2.91 to maintain fund balance in Fund 194. 4. Service Level R— Unpaved Street and Road Maintenance The TCSD rates and charges for Service Level R are not proposed to increase from their approved per parcel rate. The rate is capped at $115.26 per single family residential and $57.62 per vacant residential property. As per Proposition 218 all property owners are required to be noticed as to the rates and proposed charges that the TCSD will be assessing at least 45 days prior to the public hearing. Notices were mailed on May 13, 2016 calling for a June 28, 2016 public hearing. On May 10, 2016 the TCSD Board of Directors approved a Resolution of Intention that called for the public hearing to be held on June 28, 2016. The levy and collection of the TCSD Rates and Charges is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080 (b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15273 of the State Guidelines because the rates and charges are necessary to maintain existing services within the TCSD. The total revenue for all service levels as written in the attached 2016-17 Engineer's Annual Levy Report is $10,270,545 which varies slightly from the Annual Operating Budget due to timing differences in the production of the two documents. The revisions did not result in any rate increases. FISCAL IMPACT: The $10,270,545 in revenue generated from the TCSD Rates and Charges will fund residential streetlights, perimeter landscaping; recycling and refuse collection services and emergency unpaved road maintenance in the City of Temecula. This number is consistent with the 2016-17 Engineer's Annual Levy Report and Annual Operating Budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution —Service Levels B, C, D, and R 2. Engineer's Annual Levy Report RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE LEVEL B — RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING, SERVICE LEVEL C — PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, SERVICE LEVEL D — RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION AND SERVICE LEVEL R — EMERGENCY UNPAVED ROAD SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1, 1989, voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"), to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction. Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61115, the TCSD has prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for the services furnished by it, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, property taxes within the TCSD in the manner prescribed by Government Code Section 61115. By previous resolution, the TCSD proposed to continue such rates and charges for the operation, maintenance, service and administration of residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping, recycling and refuse collection and emergency unpaved road maintenance services for Fiscal Year 2016- 2017. Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61115, the TCSD caused a written report ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, which Report contains a description of each parcel of real property and the proposed amount of the rates and charges for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The Report is based upon a budget adopted by the Board of Directors for the proposed services for specific areas where such services are provided, including necessary staff and administrative expenses. A summary of the Report containing the proposed rates and charges is attached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Project Summary", and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Report is on file in the office of the Secretary of the TCSD, and is available for public inspection. Section 4. By previous resolution, the Board of Directors acknowledged the filing of the Report, and appointed a time and place for a public hearing on the Report and the proposed rates and charges. Notice of the public hearing was mailed as required by law on May 13, 2016 calling for a public hearing on June 28, 2016. Notice was published as required by law and affidavits of publication and mailing are on file with the Secretary of the TCSD. Section 5. On June 28, 2016, the Board of Directors held a duly noticed public hearing at which public hearing, the Board of Directors heard and considered all oral and written objections, protests and comments by interested person concerning the Report, the proposed rates and charges, and the method of collection of such rates and charges. Section 6. The Board of Directors hereby finds that, based on the Report and the District budget, the rates and charges as set out on Exhibit "A" do not exceed the reasonable cost of the services to be provided by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Section 7. The Board of Directors hereby overrules any and all objections and protests and adopts the rates and charges for residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping, recycling and refuse collection and emergency unpaved road maintenance services for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 as set out on Exhibit A. Section 8. The TCSD shall collect such rates and charges at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the property taxes collected within the TCSD. These rates and charges shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such property taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of property taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to these rates and charges, except for California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. However, if for the first year the charge is levied, the real property to which the charge relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien or a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes appear on the roll, then the charge shall not result in a lien against the property, but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection. Section 9. If a property owner subject to these rates and charges questions the classification of the owner's property for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, or claims that an error has been made with respect to the implantation of the rates and charges or the application of the rates and charges to the owner's property for that fiscal year, such property owner must appeal the levy by filing an appeal with the Secretary of the TCSD before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2016, pursuant to procedures established by the TCSD, in order to be considered under the appeal of classification or correction of errors program. Section 10. If a property owner subject to these rates and charges believes that payment of the rates and charges for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 would create a hardship for that property owner during that fiscal year, such property owner must appeal the levy by filing a hardship appeal with the TCSD Secretary before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2016, pursuant to procedures established by the TCSD, in order to be considered under the hardship appeal program. Section 11. The TCSD Secretary is hereby ordered to transmit or cause to be transmitted to the County Auditor of the County of Riverside, California before August 10, 2016, the Report and the property tax roll with such rates and charges enumerated for each parcel not exempt there from; and the County Auditor is hereby designated, required, empowered, authorized, instructed, directed and ordered to make collection of such rates and charges as shown on that roll and to perform any and all duties necessary therefore. Section 12. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the levy and collection of these rates and charges is exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and Section 15273 of the State Guidelines because the rates and charges are necessary to maintain existing improvements within the TCSD. Section 13. The District Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary EXHIBIT A PROJECT SUMMARY TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT On January 28, 2014, Albert A. Webb Associates was retained by the City of Temecula to prepare the Annual Levy Report for the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Pursuant to Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61115, the TCSD has the power to levy and collect rates and charges in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished by it. The levy and collection of the rates and charges is accomplished by the identification and description of each parcel within a specific Service Level. A Service Level is a defined area that provides a specific service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those parcels contained within that service level boundary. The TCSD is currently composed of four (4) Service Levels, as described below: 1. Service Level B — Residential Street Lights. Operations, maintenance, utility costs and administration of all residential streetlights. 2. Service Level C - Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance. Operations, maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD. 3. Service Level D — Recycling and Refuse Collection. Operations and administration of the recycling and refuse collection program for single-family residential dwellings. 4. Service Level R — Unpaved Road Maintenance. Maintenance of unpaved streets and roads. The Financial Analysis contained herein contains each Service Level including their totals for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 as follows: SERVICE LEVEL Rate BUDGET Service Level B $1,025,362 $25.68/SFR* Service Level C $1,543,825 Variable Service Level D $7,691,515 $269.60 Service Level R $9,843 Variable TOTAL TCSD BUDGET FY 2016-2017 $10,270,545 *Single Family Residential The Levy and Collection amounts for all non-exempt parcels within the TCSD for the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 are as shown on the Levy Roll on file with the City Clerk/District Secretary. A L B E R T A. r r r r A S S O C I A T E S Engineer's Annual Levy Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 r o r, �j �1 Temecula Community Services District Service Levels 6, C, R and Recycling & Refuse Collection Prepared for: AGk �1- The Heart of Southern California Wine Country June 2016 You www.webbassociates.com Table of Contents Sections Section i. Engineer's Statement i Section 1. Description of Services 1 Section 2. Budgets and Levy Summary 2 Section 3. District Services and Charges 5 Section 4. Changes to the District 10 Section 5. Method of Apportionment 11 Section 6. Tax Roll 14 Tables Table 2-1. Operating Budget Department Summary 3 Table 2-2. Year over Year Budget Comparison 4 Table 3-1. Service Level B 5 Table 3-2. Service Level C 6 Table 5-1. Parcel Charge Calculation Service Level B 11 Table 5-2. Parcel Charge Calculation Service Level C 12 Table 5-3. Parcel Charge Calculation Service Level R 13 Table 5-4. Parcel Charge Calculation Refuse/Recycling Collection 13 Appendices Appendix A. Tax Roll A-1 i. Engineer's Statement AGENCY: CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT: TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS CITY OF TEMECULA STATE OF CALIFORNIA REPORT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 61115 Pursuant to Government Code Section 61115,this Report is prepared and presented to the Board to prescribe Service Level B, Service Level C, Service Level R and Refuse/Recycling Collection rates and charges for the parcels and territories within the District. A Public Hearing is held each year before the Board to allow the public an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding the District. Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at the noticed Public Hearing, and review of the Report, the Board may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report, and confirmation of the Charges, the Board shall order the levy and collection of Charges for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. In such case, the levy information will be submitted to the Riverside County Auditor/Controller, and included as Charges on the property tax roll for the various services provided in Fiscal Year 2016-2017. SECTION 1 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES of the areas covered and the services provided for the Fiscal Year. The description of services shows and describes the existing improvements, and is sufficient in showing and describing the general nature, location,and extent of the improvements. SECTION 2 A BUDGETS AND LEVY SUMMARY by Service Levy of the improvements to be maintained and/or improved for the mentioned Fiscal Year. SECTION 3 A description of the DISTRICT SERVICES AND CHARGES by Service Level, describing the method used to apportion District charges. SECTION CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT contains details of changes that have occurred within the District since its inception that could affect the levy. SECTION 5 The METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT used to calculate the levy for each of the Service Levels. SECTION 6 The TAx ROLL information. Temecula Community Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 i. Engineer's Statement WHEREAS, upon incorporation of the City of Temecula (the "City"), effective December 1, 1989 voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District (the "District")to provide specified services previously provided by the County of Riverside (the"County") to properties within its jurisdiction.The boundary of the District is coterminous with the City boundary and includes all parcels within the City with the City Council acting as the Board of Directors(the"Board") for the District.The District collects property-related fees and charges("Charges") in order to provide services and maintain the improvements within the District. The District was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant to the Community Services District Law,Title 6, Division 3 of the California Government Code("CSD Law"). WHEREAS, each fiscal year, an Engineer's Annual Levy Report (the "Report") is prepared, filed, and approved by the Board.This Report describes the District,any changes to the District,and the proposed Charges for the fiscal year.The word "parcel," for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessment Number or Assessor's Parcel Number by the Riverside County Assessor's Office. The Riverside County Auditor/Controller uses Assessment Numbers and specific Fund Numbers to identify on the tax roll properties charged for District services. The Charges contained in the Report are based on the historical and estimated cost to service properties within the District.The services provided by the District and the corresponding costs are budgeted and charged as separate Service Levels and include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, and revenues. Each parcel is charged for the services provided to the parcel. The District provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope protection, and refuse collection in numerous residential developments as well as unpaved road improvement and maintenance within specified areas of the District. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Government Code Section 61115 the District has prescribed, revised, and collected rates and charges for residential street lighting ("Service Level B"), perimeter landscaping ("Service Level C"), unpaved road maintenance ("Service Level R"), and Refuse/Recycling Collection services furnished by the District, and has elected to have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Section 61115. Temecula Community Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 i. Engineer's Statement Now,THEREFORE, I, the appointed ENGINEER, acting on behalf of the Temecula Services District, pursuant to the "CSD Law", do hereby submit the following: The District requested Albert A. Webb Associates, to prepare and file an Engineer's Report for Temecula Community Services District (Levels B, C, R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) pursuant to the Government Code Section 61115, presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations, and servicing of the improvements for Service Levels B, C, R and Refuse/Recycling Collection, for the referenced Fiscal Year, an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations, and servicing the improvements, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots and/or parcels within each Service Level and Refuse/Recycling Collection in proportion to the special benefit received; This Report and the information contained herein reflect the proposed budget for each of the various services provided by the District and the rates and charges applicable to those services as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention. Reference is hereby made to the Riverside County Assessor's maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of parcels within the District.The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District. Executed this -) day of 2016. ALBERTA.WEBB ASSOCIATES FRflFESSIpN 4;z M a NO. 37385 ky MATTHEW E.WEBB PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 37385 �� CIV14 i� ENGINEER OF WORK CAL"F CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA Final approval, confirmation and levy of the annual assessment and all matters in the Engineer's Report were made on the day of 2016, by adoption of Resolution No. By the Board of Directors. CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA STATE OF CALIFORNIA A copy of the Tax Roll and Engineer's Annual Levy Report were filed in the office of the City Clerk on the day of 12016 CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA STATE OF CALIFORNIA Temecula Community Services District(Service Level B,C Rand Refuse/Recycling Collection) Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 1. Description of Services The boundary of the District is coterminous with the City boundary, and includes all parcels within the City. The District provides certain property related services and improvements consisting of four(4)separate and distinct services referred to as "Service Levels". Each parcel within the District is charged proportionately for only those services attributable to the parcel. Each Service Level has differing costs depending upon the services provided. All parcels identified within a Service Level share in the cost of the service. The costs associated with the service are spread among all properties within that Service Level to which the service is provided in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the specific service level. Services and improvements provided throughout the District include residential street lighting, perimeter landscape maintenance and slope protection, unpaved road improvement construction and maintenance, and a refuse and recycling collection program.The Service Levels are identified as follows: Service Level B- Residential Street Lighting Services include the operation, maintenance, utility costs and administration of residential streetlights. Service Level C- Perimeter Landscaping Services include the operation, maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration of all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the District. Service Level R- Unpaved Road Maintenance Services include the operation and administration of certain unpaved streets and roads maintained by the District. Refuse/Recycling Collection Services include the operation and administration of the refuse and recycling program for single-family dwellings. Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 2. Budgets and Levy Summary The budgets for each Service Level are shown below. Each Service Level provides different and specific services and improvements to various parcels within the District. Only the parcels that the services and improvements are levied for are included at each of the Service Levels.The"Total Levy Units" and the resulting "Charge per Levy Unit" (shown in Table 2-2), reflect a method of apportionment that most fairly spreads the costs of the services to the parcels in that Service Level.The "Total Levy Units" for Service Levels B, C, and Refuse/Recycling Collection is based on a per parcel count. For Service Level R, levy units are based on a Parcel Development Unit("PDU"),which is similar to a per parcel count but makes a distinction between developed and undeveloped parcels. For a more complete description of the methods used for calculating the "Total Levy Units" used for each Service Level, please refer to Section 5, Method of Apportionment. Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 2 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 2. Budgets and Levy Summary Table 2-1 Operating Budget Department Summary for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2017 Budget Item No. 194 District PERSONNEL Services $11,592 $117,763 $103,212 $0 $232,567 Subtotal Personnel Services $11,592 $117,763 $103,212 $0 $232,567 OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE 5200'S Repair&Maintenance Facilities 5212 $0 $60,465 $0 $0 $60,465 Office Supplies 5220 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Printing 5222 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Election Costs(Offset by Developer Deposits) 5225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Dues and Memberships 5226 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 Postage and Packaging 5230 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Property Tax Administrative Fees 5231 $13,770 $11,058 $15,000 $153 $39,981 Utilities 5240 $0 $449,545 $0 $0 $449,545 Small Tools and Equipment 5242 $0 $515 $5,000 $0 $5,515 Consulting Services 5248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Outside Services 5250 $0 $0 $18,000 $0 $18,000 Public Notices 5256 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $15,000 Staff Training/Education 5261 $0 $0 $500 $0 $500 Mileage 5262 $0 $0 $250 $0 $250 Recognition Program 5265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 5200's $13,770 $521,583 $59,750 $153 $595,256 Waste Hauling 5315 $0 $0 $7,499,862 $0 $7,499,862 Street Lighting 5319 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Subtotal 5300's $1,000,000 $0 $7,499,862 $0 $8,499,862 Emergency Road Maintenance 5402 $0 $0 $0 $9,690 $9,690 Landscape Maintenance 5415 $0 $683,479 $0 $0 $683,479 Landscape Rehabilitation 5416 $0 $221,000 $0 $0 $221,000 Subtotal 5400's $0 $904,479 $0 $9,690 $914,169 Recycling Programs $0 $0 $28,691 $0 $28,691 Subtotal $0 $0 $28,691 $0 $28,691 Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL DIRECT DISTRICT COSTS $1,025,362 $1,543,825 $7,691,515 $9,843 $10,270,545 EXPENDITURES/REVENUES Contingency Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES/REVENUES $1,025,362 $1,543,825 $7,691,515 $9,843 $10,270,545 CONTRIBUTIONS Contributions from Grants 4025 $0 $0 $27,691 $0 $27,691 Operation Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Contributions $0 $5,873 $6,000 $100 $11,973 Fund Balance Collection/Contribution $383,978 ($47,155) $81,525 $4,211 $422,559 TOTAL COLLECTION/CONTRIBUTIONS $383,978 ($41,282) $115,216 $4,311 $462,223 Balance to Levy(Budgeted) $641,384 $1,585,107 $7,576,299 $5,532 :O: ,322 Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 3 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 2. Budgets and Levy Summary The following Table provides levy information for the various Service Levels within the District, comparing the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 to the previous fiscal year. Table 2-2 Year over Year Budget Comparison FY 2015-16 ENROLLMENTS FY 2016-17 PROJECTIONS Total Charge Total %Change Fund Levy Levy Total Levy per Levy Charge Total District No. Parcels � Units Unit Levy FParce1Js Units Unit Levy Unit Levy Service Level B-Residential Street Lighting Single-Family Residential 24,636 24,636 $25.68 $632,652.48 24,636 24,636 0.00% $25.68 $632,652.48 Condominium 680 340 $25.68 $8,731.20 680 340 0.00% $25.68 $8,731.20 68-2914 25,316 24,976 $641,383.68 25,316 24,976 $641,383.68 Service Level C-Perimeter Landscaping(1)(2) Zone 1 68-2930 327 327 $116.00 $37,932.00 327 327 0.00% $116.00 $37,932.00 Zone 2 68-2931 478 478 $89.00 $42,542.00 478 478 0.00% $89.00 $42,542.00 Zone 3 68-2932 408 408 $116.00 $47,328.00 408 408 0.00% $116.00 $47,328.00 Zone 4 68-2933 139 139 $46.00 $6,394.00 139 139 0.00% $46.00 $6,394.00 Zone 5 68-2934 223 223 $175.00 $39,025.00 223 223 0.00% $175.00 $39,025.00 Zone 6(1) 68-2935 229 229 $104.62 $23,957.98 229 229 0.91% $105.56 $24,173.24 Zone 7 68-2936 188 188 $89.00 $16,732.00 188 188 0.00% $89.00 $16,732.00 Zone 8 68-2937 783 783 $175.00 $137,025.00 783 783 0.00% $175.00 $137,025.00 Zone 9 68-2938 111 111 $46.00 $5,106.00 111 111 0.00% $46.00 $5,106.00 Zone 10 68-2939 84 84 $116.00 $9,744.00 84 84 0.00% $116.00 $9,744.00 Zone 11 68-2940 14 14 $175.00 $2,450.00 14 14 0.00% $175.00 $2,450.00 Zone 12 68-2941 831 831 $116.00 $96,396.00 831 831 0.00% $116.00 $96,396.00 Zone 13 68-2942 744 744 $46.00 $34,224.00 744 744 0.00% $46.00 $34,224.00 Zone 14 68-2943 166 166 $89.00 $14,774.00 166 166 0.00% $89.00 $14,774.00 Zone 15 68-2944 56 56 $175.00 $9,800.00 56 56 0.00% $175.00 $9,800.00 Zone 16 68-2945 216 216 $175.00 $37,800.00 216 216 0.00% $175.00 $37,800.00 Zone 17 68-2946 46 46 $46.00 $2,116.00 46 46 0.00% $46.00 $2,116.00 Zone 18 68-2947 1,343 1,343 $70.00 $94,010.00 1,343 1,343 0.00% $70.00 $94,010.00 Zone 19 68-2948 242 242 $225.00 $54,450.00 242 242 0.00% $225.00 $54,450.00 Zone 20 68-2949 1,017 1,017 $175.00 $177,975.00 1,017 1,017 0.00% $175.00 $177,975.00 Zone 21 68-2950 1,769 1,769 $129.00 $228,201.00 1,769 1,769 0.00% $129.00 $228,201.00 Zone 22 68-2951 38 38 $116.00 $4,408.00 38 38 0.00% $116.00 $4,408.00 Zone 23 68-2952 420 420 $20.00 $8,400.00 420 420 0.00% $20.00 $8,400.00 Zone 24 68-2953 1,621 1,621 $100.00 $162,100.00 1,621 1,621 0.00% $100.00 $162,100.00 Zone 25 68-2954 220 220 $200.00 $44,000.00 220 220 0.00% $200.00 $44,000.00 Zone 26 68-2955 8 8 $270.00 $2,160.00 8 8 0.00% $270.00 $2,160.00 Zone 27 68-2956 130 130 $70.00 $9,100.00 130 130 0.00% $70.00 $9,100.00 Zone 28 68-2957 1,806 1,806 $129.00 $232,974.00 1,806 1,806 0.00% $129.00 $232,974.00 Zone 29 68-2958 10 10 $373.40 $3,734.00 10 10 0.91% $376.80 $3,768.00 Zone 30 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Zone 31 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Zone 32 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tota 1 13,667 13,667 $1,584,857.98 13,667 13,667 $1,585,107.24 Service Level R-Road Maintenance Rate Level 1 68-2917 1 55 48 $115.26 $5,532.48 55 48 0.00% $115.26 $5,532.48 Citywide Recycling/Refuse Collection 68-2916 1 27,930 27,930 $259.72 $7,253,979.60 28,102 28,102 3.72% $269.60 $7,576,299.20 1 The maximum rate per Levy Unit,for Zones 6,29,31 and 32 will escalate by the lesser of 5%or the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index("CPI").For FY 16-17 the increase will be 0.91%,the percentage increase in the Annual CPI. (z)Zones 30,31,&32 will not be levied for FY 16-17 as the project areas will be maintained by an HOA Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 4 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 3. District Services and Charges Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting Service Level B includes all developed single-family residential parcels, condominiums, and residential vacant lots for which the District provides ongoing servicing, operation, and maintenance of local street lighting improvements.The current rate and charges for Service Level B is $25.68 per residential lot ($12.84 per condominium unit within Specific Plans), and shall be applied to developed and undeveloped residential parcels within the following Tracts and subdivisions for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Table 3-1 Service Level B 04153-00 19872-05 20882-01 21675-04 23063-03 23101-05 23267-02 24135-03 27827-01 29928-00 31053-03 04188-00 19939-00 20882-02 21675-05 23063-04 23101-06 23267-03 24136-00 27827-02 29928-01 31276-00 04457-00 19939-01 20882-03 21675-06 23063-05 23125-00 23267-04 24136-01 27827-03 29928-02 31344-00 06559-00 19939-02 20987-00 21760-00 23063-06 23125-01 23371-00 24136-02 28309-00 29928-03 31898-00 07401-00 20079-00 21067-00 21765-00 23063-07 23125-02 23371-01 24136-03 28480-00 29929-00 32104-00 07402-00 20079-01 21082-00 22148-00 23063-08 23125-03 23371-02 24182-01 28482-00 29929-01 32169-00 08369-00 20079-02 21082-01 22203-00 23064-00 23126-00 23371-03 24182-02 28482-01 30088-00 32170-00 08369-01 20079-03 21082-02 22204-00 23064-01 23128-00 23371-04 24182-03 28482-02 30264-00 32319-00 08369-02 20130-00 21082-03 22208-00 23064-02 23142-00 23371-05 24182-04 28482-03 30264-01 32436-00 11087-01 20130-01 21082-04 22593-00 23064-03 23143-00 23371-06 24183-00 28503-00 30264-02 32436-01 11087-02 20130-02 21340-00 22593-01 23065-00 23143-01 23371-07 24183-01 28510-00 30264-03 32437-00 12189-01 20130-03 21340-01 22593-02 23065-01 23143-02 23371-08 24184-00 28510-01 30264-04 32437-01 12189-02 20130-04 21340-02 22627-00 23065-03 23143-03 23371-09 24184-01 28510-02 30264-05 32437-02 12189-03 20130-05 21340-03 22627-01 23065-04 23143-04 23371-10 24185-00 28510-03 30264-06 32437-03 12189-04 20130-06 21340-04 22715-00 23065-05 23143-06 23371-11 24185-01 28526-00 30264-07 33124-00 12189-05 20153-00 21340-05 22715-01 23066-01 23143-07 23371-14 24185-02 28553-00 30264-08 33125-00 12189-06 20154-00 21340-06 22715-02 23066-02 23143-08 23483-00 24186-00 28553-01 30264-09 34698-00 12189-07 20319-00 21340-07 22716-00 23066-03 23143-09 24131-00 24186-01 28810-00 30264-10 Old Town 13060-01 20643-00 21430-01 22716-01 23066-04 23143-10 24131-01 24186-02 28980-00 30264-11 PM 24387 13060-02 20644-00 21561-00 22716-02 23066-05 23143-11 24131-02 24186-03 29033-00 30264-12 PM 26488 13060-03 20703-01 21672-01 22716-03 23067-02 23173-00 24131-03 24187-00 29036-00 30264-13 PM 27493 13060-04 20703-02 21672-02 22716-04 23067-03 23173-01 24132-00 24187-01 29133-00 30264-14 PM 28122 13060-05 20703-03 21672-03 22761-00 23067-04 23173-02 24132-01 24187-02 29203-00 30264-15 13060-06 20735-01 21672-04 22762-00 23067-05 23173-03 24133-00 24188-00 29286-00 30667-00 13060-07 20735-02 21673-00 22786-00 23100-01 23173-04 24133-01 24188-01 29734-00 30667-01 13060-08 20735-03 21673-01 22915-00 23100-02 23174-01 24133-02 24188-02 29798-00 30667-02 18518-00 20735-04 21673-02 22915-01 23100-03 23174-02 24133-03 24188-03 29798-01 30667-03 18518-01 20735-05 21673-03 22915-02 23100-04 23174-03 24133-04 24232-00 29798-02 30668-00 18518-02 20735-06 21674-00 22915-03 23100-05 23174-04 24133-05 25004-00 29798-03 30668-01 18518-03 20735-07 21674-01 22916-00 23100-06 23174-05 24134-00 25004-01 29798-04 30668-02 18583-00 20735-08 21674-02 22916-01 23100-07 23174-06 24134-01 25892-00 29798-05 30669-00 19872-00 20735-09 21674-03 22916-02 23100-08 23177-00 24134-02 26488-00 29798-06 30669-01 19872-01 20848-00 21675-00 22916-03 23101-01 23209-00 24134-03 26828-00 29798-07 30669-02 19872-02 20879-00 21675-01 22962-00 23101-02 23220-00 24135-00 26828-01 29798-08 31053-00 19872-03 20879-01 21675-02 23063-01 23101-03 23267-00 24135-01 26828-02 29798-09 31053-01 19872-04 20882-00 21675-03 23063-02 23101-04 23267-01 24135-02 27827-00 29798-10 31053-02 Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 5 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 3. District Services and Charges Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping Service level C includes all developed single family and condominium residential parcels and residential vacant lots for which the District provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of perimeter landscaped areas and slopes within the public right-of-ways and dedicated easements adjacent to and associated with certain tracts and subdivisions. The level of maintenance required in these tracts and subdivisions varies depending on operating costs. Thirty-two (32) Zones with corresponding rates have been established within Service Level C. The current rate and charges for Service Level C is per residential lot and shall be applied to developed and undeveloped residential parcels within the following Tracts and subdivisions for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Table 3-2 Service Level C Zone No.1 maximum Rate:$116.00 00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Saddlewood 18518-00 18518-01 18518-02 18518-03 Zone No.2 maximum Rate:$89.00 Proposed Rate:$89.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Winchester Creek 20130-00 20130-01 20130-02 20130-03 20130-04 20130-05 20130-06 21340-00 21340-01 21340-02 21340-03 21340-04 21340-05 21340-06 Zone No.3 maximum Rate: 00 00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Rancho Highlands 20643-00 20644-00 21760-00 22203-00 22204-00 22761-00 22762-00 Zone No.4 maximum Rate: 00 Proposed Rate:$46.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: The Vineyards 20879-00 20879-01 Zone No.5 maximum Rate:$175.00 Proposed Rate:$175.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Signet Series 20882-00 20882-01 20882-02 20882-03 ProposedZone No.6(4) maximum Rate:$105.56 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Woodcrest Country 21561-00 22208-00 Beginning Fiscal Year 2009-2010,the base rate for Zone 6 was$95.00.Each year thereafter,beginning Fiscal Year 2010-2011 the maximum rate as approved by the property owners is annually adjustable by the lesser of the percentage increase in the US Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics,Consumer Price Index("CPI")of All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area,for the previous calendar year or 5%. For Fiscal Year 2016-2017 the adjustment is 0.91%,the percentage increase in the CPI. I- L,riw� laximum Rate:$89.00 Proposed Rate:$89.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Ridgeview 20735-07 20735-08 20735-09 20881-00 21764-00 00 Proposed Rate:$175.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Village Grove 21672-01 21672-02 21672-03 21672-04 21673-00 21637-01 21637-02 21673-03 21674-00 21674-01 21674-02 21674-03 21675-00 21675-01 21675-02 21675-03 21675-04 21675-05 21675-06 laximum Rate: 00 Proposed Rate:$46.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Rancho Solana 22593-00 22593-01 22593-02 Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 6 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 3. District Services and Charges Zone No.10 maximum Rate:$116.00 00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Martinique 23128-00 Zone No.11 maximum Rate:$175.00 Proposed Rate:$175.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Meadow View 21675-00 00 00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Vintage Hills 22715-00 22715-01 22715-02 22716-00 22716-01 22716-02 22716-03 22716-04 22915-00 22915-01 22915-02 22915-03 22916-00 22916-01 22916-02 22916-03 Maximum Rate: 00 Proposed Rate:$46.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Presley Development 23267-00 23267-01 23267-02 23267-03 23267-04 26861-00 26861-01 26861-02 26861-03 Zone No.14 maximum Rate: 00 Proposed Rate:$89.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Morrison Homes 22148-00 Zone No.15 maximum Rate: 00 Proposed Rate:$175.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Barclay Estates 25004-01 Zone No.16 maximum Rate:$175.00 Proposed Rate:$175.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Tradewinds 23125-00 23125-01 23125-02 23125-03 laximum Rate: 00 Proposed Rate:$46.00 Tract a0 me: Tract Numbers: Monte Vista 1 28309-00 . Maximum Rate: 00 00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Temeku Hills 23371-00 23371-01 23371-02 23371-03 23771-04 23771-05 23371-06 23371-07 23371-08 23371-09 23371-10 23371-11 23371-14 28482-00 28482-01 28482-02 28482-03 28526-00 29033-00 laximum Rate: 00 Proposed Rate:$225.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Chantemar 1 28510-00 28510-01 28510-02 28510-03 Zone No.20 maximum Rate:$175.00 Proposed Rate:$175.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Crowne Hill 23143-00 23143-02 23413-03 23413-04 23413-01 23413-03 23413-04 23413-06 23413-07 23413-08 23413-09 23413-10 23413-11 Zone No.21 maximum Rate:$129.00 00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Vail Ranch Gated Community 28832-00 Vail Ranch Residential 23173-00 23173-01 23173-02 23173-03 23173-04 23174-01 23174-02 23174-03 23174-04 23174-05 23174-06 28480-00 Temecula Set-vices District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 7 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 3. District Services and Charges Zone No.22 maximum Rate:$116.00 Proposed Rate:$116.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Sutton Place 29286-00 Zone No.23 maximum Rate:$20.00 Proposed $20.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Pheasant Run 19872 19872-01 19872-02 19872-03 19872-04 19872-05 $100.00 Proposed $100.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Harveston 29928 29928-01 29928-02 29928-03 29929 29929-01 30088 30667 30667-01 30667-02 30667-03 30668 30668-01 30668-02 30669 30669-01 30669-02 31053 31053-01 31053-02 31053-03 32436 32436-01 32437 32437-01 32437-02 32437-03 34698 Harveston Ashville 1 31276 Harveston Ashville 11 32104 Harveston Condos 32169 32170 Zone No.25 maximum Rate:$200.00 Proposed $200.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Serena Hills 23209 Zone No.26 maximum Rate:$270.00 Proposed $270.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Traditions/Gallery Homes 29133 Zone No.27 maximum Rate:$70.00 Proposed $70.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Avondale 26828 26828-01 26828-02 Zone No.28 maximum Rate:$129.00 Proposed Rate:$129.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Wolf Creek 29798 29798-01 29798-02 29798-03 29798-04 29798-05 29798-06 29798-07 29798-08 29798-09 30264 30264-01 30264-02 30264-03 30264-04 30264-05 30264-06 30264-07 30264-08 30264-09 30264-10 30264-11 30264-12 30264-13 30264-14 30264-15 31898 33125 32319 33124 Zone No.29 Maximum Rate:$376.80 Proposed Rate:$376.80 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Gallery Portraits 31344-00 Beginning Fiscal Year 2006-2007,the base rate for Zone 29 was$315.00.Each year thereafter,beginning Fiscal Year 2007-2008 for Zone 29 the maximum rate as approved by the property owners is annually adjustable by the lesser of the percentage increase in the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index("CPI")of All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area,for the previous calendar year or 5%.For Fiscal Year 2016-2017 the adjustment is 0.91%,the percentage increase in the CPI. Zone No.30 $129.00 Proposed $129.00 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Valdemosa 25004 The maximum rate for Zone 30 is$129.00,but will not be levied for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Ill Beginning Fiscal Year 2010-2011,Zone 30 elected to maintain its own perimeter landscaping under the existing Homeowner's Association 'HOA" As a result g g P P� g g ("HOA"). the Zone will not be levied under Service Level C for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Temecula Set-vices District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) $ Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 3. District Services and Charges Zone No.31(8)(9) maximum Rate:$30.82 Proposed 1 .82 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Roripaugh Ranch TBD Beginning Fiscal Year 2006-2007,the base rate for Zone 31 was$26.00.Each year thereafter,beginning Fiscal Year 2007-2008 for Zone 31,the maximum rate as approved by the property owners is annually adjustable by the lesser of the percentage increase in the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index("CPI")of All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area,for the previous calendar year or 5%.For Fiscal Year 2016-2017 the adjustment is 0.91%,the percentage increase in the CPI. (9) The maximum rate for Zone#31 is$30.82,but will not be levied for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.Zone 31 elected to have its perimeter landscaping maintained by a Homeowner's Association("HOA").As a result the Zone will not be levied under Service Level C for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Zone No.32 maximum Rate:$704.83 Proposed Rate:$704.82 Tract Name: Tract Numbers: Vineyard View 23103-2 10) Beginning Fiscal Year 2008-2009,the base rate for Zone 32 was$640.00.Each year thereafter,beginning Fiscal Year 2009-2010 for Zone 32,the maximum rates as approved by the property owners are annually adjustable by the lesser of the percentage increase in the US Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index("CPI")of All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area,for the previous calendar year or 5%.For Fiscal Year 2016-2017 the adjustment is 0.91%,the percentage increase in the CPI. The maximum rate for Zone 32 is$704.83,but will not be levied for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.Zone 32 elected to have its perimeter landscaping maintained by a Homeowner's Association("HOA").As a result the Zone will not be levied under Service Level C for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Service Level R, Road Maintenance Service Level R provides funding for construction, improvement, service, and maintenance of unpaved public streets and roads within specific areas of the District. The services provided may include, but are not limited to, renovation or restoration due to damage, flood and drainage control, repairs and re-grading, and upgrades of the existing areas as required for unpaved roads.All parcels identified within Service Level R share in the cost of the services provided.The costs associated with the services are spread among all parcels within various areas ("rate levels") of Service Level R in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment for the service level. Service Level R currently has one (1) active rate level, Rate Level R-1. The area for Rate Level R-2 has been fully paved and therefore an assessment is currently not required. Only the parcels within each of the two (2) boundary areas will be charged for the costs associated with servicing and maintaining the roads and streets in the area. • RATE LEVEL R-1 —This rate level consists of fifty-five (55) assessable parcels that have direct access to roads or streets that are serviced and maintained through the District. This rate level provides funding for the servicing and maintenance of Kimberly Lane, Greenwood Lane, Liefer Road, Gatlin Road, and Pala Vista. A total of 1.546 miles of roads are serviced and maintained in this area. The current maximum rates and charges in R-1 are $115.26 per single- family residential lot and $57.62 per vacant residential lot, and shall be applied at the maximum rates for developed and undeveloped residential parcels within R-1 for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. • RATE LEVEL R-2 —This rate level consists of forty (40) assessable parcels that have direct access to Santiago Road. This area has been fully paved and no longer requires service under this District. Refuse/Recycling Collection The Refuse/Recycling Collection Service Level provides for the operation and administration of the refuse collection program, including recycling services for all developed residential homes (or "Households") within the District. The rate and charges for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Refuse/Recycling Collection is $269.60 per Household and will be applied to all parcels that have been identified as developed residential homes. Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 9 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 4. Changes to the District Changes or modifications to the District structure, if any, could include but are not limited to changes or expansion in the existing improvements or in the types of services provided, addition of new services or Service Levels, restructuring of the current Service Levels, inclusion of parcels into the District or Service Levels, or revisions in the method of apportionment. Changes or modifications within the District that may affect the levy are outlined in the following. Notable Previous Modifications to the District Two Service Levels Replaced with a Special Tax On March 4, 1997, the voters of Temecula approved a Special Tax to fund citywide community services. This Special Tax replaced two existing Service Levels, previously charged through the Community Services District. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1997-1998 the below two Service Levels were replaced by the Special Tax and are no longer charged through the District. • COMMUNITY SERVICES,PARKS,AND RECREATION—This service level provided for the maintenance, service, and operation of all public parks and recreation services within the City. • SERVICE LEVEL A,ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTING AND MEDIANS—This service level provided servicing, operation, and maintenance of traffic signals,street lighting,and landscaped medians along arterial streets. Service Level R As of Fiscal Year 2008-2009, the streets have been fully paved and there is no longer any need to assess for unpaved road maintenance (Rate level R-2). Proposed Modifications to the District for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 The most notable modification to the District for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 is related to the addition of improvements and expansion of existing services as a result of new development. When a new residential tract is developed, the District accepts additional improvements for maintenance and servicing. Along with acceptance of the improvements, the parcels within those tracts are included in the appropriate Service Levels. The improvements and services for Service Levels B and C are typically tract or development specific and therefore, all parcels within a tract or development are included in these two Service Levels when the District accepts the improvements. Additionally, individual residential parcels are included in the Refuse/Recycling Collection when a new single-family residential unit is identified and service is ordered. Service Level B There were no additional inclusions or modifications to Service Level B for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Service Level C There are no new inclusions to Service Level C(Perimeter Landscaping) proposed for the Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Service Level R There are no new inclusions to Service Level R(Road Maintenance),proposed for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Refuse/Recycling Collection A total of approximately 172 newly developed residential parcels have been identified and added to Refuse/Recycling Collection for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. These new residential parcels are identified each year and included in Refuse/Recycling Collection based upon the waste hauler's updated service records. The rate for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 for Refuse/Recycling Collection is $269.60 per residential parcel. For Fiscal Year 2015- 2016,the rate and charge for this service was$259.72. For more information, please refer to Section 2, Budgets and Levy Summary. The costs for the District represent actual service costs,as provided in the City's franchise agreement with CR&R Waste Services. Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 10 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 5. Method of Apportionment Method of Apportionment The cost to provide services within the District will be fairly distributed among each eligible property. Service Level B(Residential Street Lighting): The following formula is used to calculate each property's Service Level B charges by the per parcel/unit (residential "lot/unit") method. Total Balance to Levy(Budgeted):(Total Residential Lots+Assigned Condominium Units)=Parcel Charge Service Level C(Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes): and Refuse/Recycling Collection: The following formula is used to calculate each property's Service Level C charges by the per parcel (residential "lot") method. Total Balance to Levy(Budgeted)/Total Residential Lots(in Service Level)= Parcel Charge Service Level R(Roads): The Charge per Levy Unit for Service Level R is based on a Parcel Development Unit (PDU), which is similar to a per parcel charge, but makes a distinction between developed and undeveloped parcels. Parcel Development Units= 1.0 for Developed Parcels Parcel Development Units=0.5 for Undeveloped Parcels Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcel PDU(in Rate Level)=Parcel Charge The following tables reflect the levy calculations for each Service Level. Table 5-1 Parcel Charge Calculation Service Level B Charge per Parcel/Unit Property Type Parcel/Unit x Parcel/Unit Charge Multiplier Single Family Residential Lot 1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel Vacant Residential Lot 1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel Assigned Condominium Units(12) 0.50 $25.68 $12.84 Per Parcel/Unit T'FDefined as Assigned Condominium Units in Service Level B for which the interior streetlights are privately maintained however,the Assigned Condominium Units benefit from perimeter or collector street lighting funded by Service Level B. Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 5. Method of Apportionment Table 5-2 Parcel Charge Calculation Service Level C Charge per Property Type and Zone Parcel/Unit X Parcel Parcel Charge Multiplier Residential Lot Zone No. 1 1.00 $116.00 $116.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 2 1.00 $89.00 $89.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 3 1.00 $116.00 $116.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No.4 1.00 $46.00 $46.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 5 1.00 $175.00 $175.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 6(13) 1.00 $105.56 $105.56 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 7 1.00 $89.00 $89.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 8 1.00 $175.00 $175.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 9 1.00 $46.00 $46.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 10 1.00 $116.00 $116.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 11 1.00 $175.00 $175.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 12 1.00 $116.00 $116.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 13 1.00 $46.00 $46.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 14 1.00 $89.00 $89.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 15 1.00 $175.00 $175.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 16 1.00 $175.00 $175.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 17 1.00 $46.00 $46.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 18 1.00 $70.00 $70.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 19 1.00 $225.00 $225.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 20 1.00 $175.00 $175.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 21 1.00 $129.00 $129.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 22 1.00 $116.00 $116.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 23 1.00 $20.00 $20.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 24 1.00 $100.00 $100.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 25 1.00 $200.00 $200.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 26 1.00 $270.00 $270.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 27 1.00 $70.00 $70.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 28 1.00 $129.00 $129.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 29(13) 1.00 $376.80 $376.80 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 30(14) 1.00 $129.00 $129.00 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 31(13)(15) 1.00 $31.10 $31.10 Per Parcel Residential Lot Zone No. 32 (13)(15) 1.00 $711.24 $711.24 Per Parcel Beginning Fiscal Year 2007-2008 for Zones 29 and 31,and beginning Fiscal Year 2009-10 for Zones 6 and 32,the maximum rates as approved by the property owners are annually adjustable by the lesser of the percentage increase in the US Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics,Consumer Price Index("CPI") of All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area,for the previous calendar year or 5%. (14) Beginning Fiscal Year 2010-2011,Zone 30 has elected to maintain its own perimeter landscaping under the existing Homeowner's Association 'HOA" Asa g g p p� g g ("HOA"). result the Zone will not be levied under Service Level C for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. (15) Zones 31 and 32 Zone 31 elected to have the perimeter landscaping maintained by a Homeowner's Association("HOA").As a result the Zones will not be levied under Service Level C for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Temecula Set-vices District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 12 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 5. Method of Apportionment Table 5-3 Parcel Charge Calculation Service Level R Property Type and Zone Parcel/Unit x Charge per Single Family Residential Lot R-1 1.00 $115.26 $115.26 Per Parcel Vacant Residential Lot R-1 0.50 57.62$115.26 $ Per Parcel Table 5-4 Parcel Charge Calculation Refuse/Recycling Collection Property Type(16) 1 Parcel/Unit x Charge per Single Family Residential Lot 1.00 $269.60 $269.60 Per Parcel Developed residential parcels identified by CR&R for which refuse collections are available. Temecula Set-vices District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 13 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 6. Tax Roll Parcel identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be the parcel as shown on the County Assessor's map for the year in which this Report is prepared. A listing of parcels within this District, along with the charges, has been submitted to the City Clerk' and, by reference, is made part of this report as Appendix A. Temecula Services District(Service Level B, C,R and Refuse/Recycling Collection) 14 Final Engineer's Annual Levy Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17 APPENDIX A Tax Roll A L B E R T A. 1 A S S O C I A T E S A L B E R T A. A S S 0 C I A T E S Corporate Headquarters 3788 McCray Street Riverside,CA 92506 951.686.1070 Palm Desert Office 36-951 Cook Street#103 Palm Desert,CA 92211 760.568.5005 Murrieta Office 41391 Kalmia Street#320 Murrieta,CA 92562 951.686.1070 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT Item No . 23 ACTION MINUTES June 14, 2016 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING The Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency convened at 7:44 PM CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR 27 Receive and File Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 That the Board of Directors receive and file Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS SARDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:45 PM, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Michael S. Naggar, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] SARDA Action Minutes 061416 1 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 14, 2016— 7:00 PM 6:00 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation. The City Council will meet in Closed Session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1) with respect to the matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880. At 6:00 PM Mayor Naggar called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:08 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Erin Lee Invocation: Sylvester Scott of Temecula Baha'i Community Flag Salute: David Fahrion ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Achievement to Abby Reinke Elementary School 2016 Odyssey of the Mind Team Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Riverside County Principal of the Year Marc Horton of Great Oak High School PUBLIC COMMENTS • Rebecca Weersing addressed the City Council. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Action Minutes 061416 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of May 24, 2016 and May 26, 2016 Budget Workshop - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of May 24, 2016; 2.2 Approve the action minutes of the May 26, 2016 Budget Workshop. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-1) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken and Rahn with Council Member Naggar abstaining due to reimbursement, Check #176638 in the amount of $142, for City related computer software. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of April 30, 2016. Action Minutes 061416 2 5 Approve Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council receive and file the Financial Statements for the 3rd Quarter March 31, 2016 6 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates for Research and Community Outreach - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates for research and community outreach. 7 Adopt Ordinance 16-05 to Adopt Development Code Amendment Establishing Performance Standards for Businesses Manufacturing Alcoholic Beverages with Retail Sales and a Tasting Room (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 16-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(B)(3) Action Minutes 061416 3 8 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc. for Temecula Police Motorcycle Repair and Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc., in the amount of $12,500, for Temecula Police motorcycle repair and maintenance, for a total agreement amount of $42,500 for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 9 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Temecula and Foundation for Senior Care for Transportation and Parking Lot Related Services at the Mary Phillips Senior Center - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Foundation for Senior Care for the provision of transportation services provided by the Foundation and utilizing the City facility, Mary Phillips Senior Center parking lot, as a connectivity destination for pick-up and drop-off of Foundation clients. 10 Approve the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Helixstorm for Technology Services to Include but not Limited to Virtualization, Network, and System Administration - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Helixstorm, in the amount of $100,000 for Technology-related services, for a total agreement amount of$200,000. 11 Approve the First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement with T&D Communications for Cabling Services - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Contractor Services Agreement with T&D Communications, in the amount of $10,000 for cabling services, for a total agreement amount of$40,000. Action Minutes 061416 4 12 Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Agreement with Innovative Document Solutions for Fiscal Years 2015-16 through 2018-19 for Canon Copiers and Printers - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Services Agreement with Innovative Document Solutions (IDS) to extend the Term to June 30, 2019; to increase the authorized annual contract amount for Fiscal Years 2015-16 through 2018-19 to $110,000; thereby, amending the total Agreement amount to $761,600; and to amend the Payment Rates and Schedule (Exhibit B); 12.2 Approve an additional appropriation to the Minor Maintenance Services Agreement in the amount of$20,000 for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 13 Approve Purchase and Installation Agreement and Related Budget Transfer with Bibliotheca for the SmartServe 1000 Self-Service Checkout Station at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve Purchase and Installation Agreement with Bibliotheca in an amount not to exceed $30,000; 13.2 Approve a Budget Transfer of $4,652 from TCSD Operating Budget (190.180.999.5250) to the Information Technology — Library Operating Budget (320.620.999.5610), in accordance with Budget Policy II.C. 14 Approve Fiscal Year 2016-17 CR&R Schedule of Solid Waste and Recycling Rates Pursuant to Franchise Agreement with CR&R, Inc. - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 Action Minutes 061416 5 15 Approve an Agreement with NRG EV Services LLC for the Installation of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station at Sixth Street Parking Lot - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council approve the Charging Services Agreement between the City and NRG EV Services LLC ("EVgo") for the 6th Street Parking Lot and authorize the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the City. 16 Approve an Agreement with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc. for Weed Abatement Services for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc., in the amount of$40,000, for Weed Abatement Services. 17 Award a Construction Contract to Los Angeles Traffic Signal Transportation, Inc. for the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Signal Modification, PW15-03 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Award a Construction Contract to Los Angeles Traffic Signal Transportation, Inc., in the amount of $85,800, for the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Signal Modification, PW15-03; 17.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of$8,580, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 17.3 Make a finding that the Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road Traffic Signal Modification is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 18 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co. for the Annual Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets for Fiscal Year 2015-16, PW15-10 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. Action Minutes 061416 6 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co., in the amount of $672,901.24, for the Annual Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets, for Fiscal Year 2015-16, PW15-10; 18.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount, $67,290.12; 18.3 Make a finding that the Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 19 Approve an Agreement with Aztec Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Janitorial for Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with Aztec Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Janitorial, in the amount of $73,652.52, to provide Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters for Fiscal Year 2016-17; 19.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed the contingency amount of $7,365.25, which is approximately 10% of the annual amount. 20 Approve a Three-Year Agreement with Excel Landscape, Inc. for Landscape Maintenance Services - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve a Three-Year Agreement with Excel Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $2,358,869 annually, for a total three-year Agreement amount of $7,076,607, for Landscape Maintenance Services; 20.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed the annual contingency amount of$353,830.35, for a total three-year contingency amount of $1,061,491.05, which is approximately 15% of the Agreement amount. Action Minutes 061416 7 21 Approve an Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc., for Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc., in the amount of $500,000, to provide Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 22 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim for the Purchase of Five Trucks for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim, in the amount of $8,372.40, which represents sales tax on the five new trucks for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 23 Approve Amendments to Five Annual Agreements for Various On-Call Traffic Engineering-Related Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 That the City Council approve Amendments to Five Annual Agreements, in the amounts specified, for Various On-Call Traffic Engineering-Related Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17, as follows: Altec Industries, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Counts Unlimited, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Pacific Striping, Inc. First Amendment $30,000 Willdan Engineering First Amendment $30,000 RECESS At 7:46 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:46 PM, the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting recessed and convened as the Joint City Council, Community Services District and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. At 8:48 PM, the joint meeting adjourned and City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. Action Minutes 061416 8 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: COUNCIL MEMBERS/DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) 29 Approve Fiscal Years 2017-21 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Adopt Fiscal Year 2016-17 CIP and Annual Operating Budgets for the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (SARDA) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council/Board of Directors: 29.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2021 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 29.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PRELIMINARY ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS Action Minutes 061416 9 29.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 16-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2017-2021, ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17, ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 29.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 29.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 29.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 JOINT MEETING ADJOURNMENT RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 30 City Council Travel/Conference Report BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT Action Minutes 061416 10 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported there were no reportable actions in regards to the Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT At 8:49 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. ********** Adjourned in Memory of the Orlando Victims ********** Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 061416 11 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Item No . 24 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve Planning Application Number LR13-0001, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update PREPARED BY: Matt Peters, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR13-0001, MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) SECTION 15262, FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan in January 2002. Since then, the document has been used to condition new development for trail and bike lane infrastructure, resulting in the creation of 37 miles of trails and 59 miles of bike lanes. While much has been accomplished, the network remains fragmented and an update to the Master Plan is needed to create a cohesive system. In an effort to close the gaps, the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. LR13-0001, a Long Range Planning Application for the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update during January 2013. On May 14, 2013, the City of Temecula entered into an agreement with KTU+A Consulting to update the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. On October 26, 2013, the City of Temecula hosted a public workshop at the Mercantile Theater located at 42051 Main Street in Temecula. The public workshop included the presentation of maps and background data, as well as a launch of the www.hikebiketemecula.org, which included an online survey, 400 people filled out and provided more than 550 comments. On May 10, 2014, the City hosted a Hike Bike Event which included opportunities to review draft maps, and walk or ride portions of trails or bike routes in and around Old Town. On April 12, 2016, Staff met with the Trails Subcommittee (Councilmembers Naggar and Rahn) to present a summary of the plan and a schedule to take to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, Community Services Commission, and Planning Commission for input prior to consideration by the City Council in May, which is nationally recognized as Bike Month. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update was prepared to allow for an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2002. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections: 1) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. Planning to fill in the gaps will ultimately result in a comprehensive network of bike lanes and trails connecting residential areas to commercial areas, schools, parks, and employment centers. It will provide an alternative form of transportation for residents from a diversity of backgrounds, including youth, and seniors. An improved trail and bicycle network will also increase bicycle usage for commuting, recreation and exercise, allowing for more healthy and active lifestyles that in turn yield numerous public health benefits. The plan is limited to concept plans only, and does not include design engineered plans. Should funding be pursued and obtained, site specific studies would be required to develop detailed designs beyond the conceptual level, which would at that time require complete environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Finally, the plan meets all requirements of an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), and in addition to hiking and biking, the plan addresses equestrians, transit/bus stops, bikeshare and neighborhood electric vehicles. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was presented to the Traffic/Public Safety Commission on Thursday, April 28, 2016, the Community Services Commission on Monday May 9, 2016, and the Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 18, 2016. A summary of input and comments will be presented at the City Council meeting on June 28, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. This is a Feasibility and Planning Study Only. This plan informs Figure C-4, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways of the City of Temecula General Plan. Should funding be pursued and obtained, site specific studies would be required to develop detailed designs beyond the conceptual level. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Notice of Public Hearing for City Council 3. Planning Commission Staff Report RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR13-0001, MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) SECTION 15262, FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 3, 2013, the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. LR13-0001, a Long Range Planning Application for Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. On May 14, 2013, the City of Temecula entered into an agreement with KTU+A Consulting to update the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. C. On October 26, 2013, the City of Temecula hosted a Public Workshop at the Mercantile Theater located at 42051 Main Street in Temecula. The Public Workshop included the presentation of maps and background data, as well as a launch of the www.hikebiketemecula.org, which included an online survey 400 people filled out and provided more than 550 comments. D. On May 10, 2014, the City hosted a Hike Bike Event, which included opportunities to review draft maps, and walk or ride portions of trails or bike routes in and around Old Town. E. On April 12, 2016, Staff met with the Trails Subcommittee to present a summary of the plan, and a schedule to take to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, Community Services Commission, and Planning Commission for input prior to consideration by the City Council in May, which is nationally recognized as Bike Month. F. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was prepared to allow for an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2002. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections; 1) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. G. The City-initiated Long Range Planning Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. H. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on May 18, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. I. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve Long Range Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Multi- Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update is intended to evaluate the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the City. The plan includes five main sections, 1) History, Trends and Project Goals, 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources, and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. Furthermore, the plan provides supporting information to assist in implementing General Plan Figure C-4, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways. As such, the Plan is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of state law and other city ordinances. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. This document is intended to provide a standardized set of treatments for world-class bicycling streets in the U.S. The result is a unique set of standards aimed at creating safe bicycling conditions to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Long Range Planning Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be statutorily exempt from further environmental review based on Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. Adoption of this Plan is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15262 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions, which actions the City Council has not approved, adopted, or funded, does not require preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors. Consistent with this exemption, the plan is limited to the preparation of concept plans and recognizes various environmental factors in the area such as aesthetic, historic and biological resources. The concept plans identified in Section 5, Gap Closure Alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts on the environment. In addition, the alternatives illustrate one option for closing a bike lane or trail gap. Other options may be considered using the Toolbox, Design Guidelines in Appendix A. The plan is limited to concept plans only, and does not include design engineered plans. Therefore, the plan qualifies for this exemption. Section 4. Recommendation. The City Council approve Long Range Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: LR13-0001, Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Applicant: City of Temecula Location: City-wide Proposal: City Council to review the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update, and adopt a Resolution to approve the plan, which includes an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2002. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections; 1) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2)Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways;4) Programs and Funding Sources; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA)funding and other grant programs. Environmental Action: Adoption of this Plan is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15262 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions,which actions the City Council has not approved, adopted, or funded, does not require preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors. Consistent with this exemption, the plan is limited to the preparation of concept plans and recognizes various environmental factors in the area such as aesthetic, historic and biological resources. The concept plans identified in Section 5, Gap Closure Alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts on the environment. In addition, the alternatives illustrate one option for closing a bike lane or trail gap. Other options may be considered using the Toolbox, Design Guidelines in Appendix A. The plan is limited to concept plans only, and does not include design engineered plans. Therefore, the plan qualifies for this exemption. Should funding be pursued and obtained, site specific studies would be required to develop detailed designs beyond the conceptual level, which would at that time require complete environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. Any petition forjudicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of,which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Planning Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Matt Peters, City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6408. PLACE OF HEARING City Council Chambers 41000 Main Street Temecula, California DATE OF HEARING June 28, 2016 TIME OF HEARING 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: May 18; 2016 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson; Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Matt Peters, Associate Planner APPLICANT NAME: City of Temecula PROJECT Long Range Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Planning SUMMARY: Commission review of the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution to approve the plan, which includes an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2002. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections; 1) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide; and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. CEQA: Statutori y Exempt Section 15262; Feasibility and Planning Studies RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan BACKGROUND SUMMARY The City Council adopted the Mu ti-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan in January 2002. Since then, the document has been used to condition new development for trail and bike lane infrastructure; resulting in the creation of 37 miles of trails and 59 miles of bike lanes. While much has been accomplished, the network remains fragmented and an update to the Master Plan is needed to create a cohesive system. In an effort to close the gaps and the City of Temecula filed Planning Applicatior No. LR13-0001, Long Range Planning Application for Multi- Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update during January 2013. On May 14, 2013, the City of Temecula entered into an agreement with KTU+A Consulting to update the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. On October 26, 2013, the City of Temecula hosted a public workshop at the Mercantile Theater at 42051 Main Street. The public workshop included the presentation of maps and background data, as well as a launch of the www.hikebiketemecula.orq, which included an online survey 400 people filled out and provided more than 550 comments. On May 14, 2014, the City hosted a Hike Bike Event which included opportunities to review draft maps, and walk or ride portions of trails or bike routes in and around Old Town. On April 12, 2016, Staff met with the Trails Subcommittee (Mike Naggar and Matt Rahn) to present a summary of the plan and a schedule to take to the PubliclTraffic Safety Commission, Community Services Commission, and Planning Commission for input prior to consideration by the City Council in May, which is nationally recognized as Bike Month. ANALYSIS The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update was prepared to allow for an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2002. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections: 1) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. Adoption of the Plan will ultimately result in a comprehensive network of bike lanes and trails connecting residential areas to commercial areas, schools, parks, and employment centers. It will provide an alternative form of transportation for residents from a diversity of backgrounds, including youth, and seniors. An improved trail and bicycle network will also increase bicycle usage for commuting, recreation and exercise, allowing for more healthy and active lifestyles that in turn yield numerous public health benefits. Finally, the plan meets all requirements of an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), and in addition to hiking and biking, the plan addresses equestrians, transit/bus stops, bikeshare and neighborhood electric vehicles. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on May 6, 2016 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Adoption of this Plan is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15252 of the State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions, which actions the City Council has not approved, adopted, or funded, does not require preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors. Consistent with this exemption, the plan is limited to the preparation of concept plans and recognizes various environmental factors in the area such as aesthetic, historic and biological resources. The concept plans identified in Section 5, Gap Closure Alternatives, were developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts on the environment. In addition, the alternatives illustrate one option for closing a bike lane or trail gap. Other options may be considered using the Toolbox, Design Guidelines in Appendix A. The plan is limited to concept plans only, and does not include design engineered plans. Therefore, the plan qualifies for this exemption. Should funding be pursued and obtained, site specific studies would be required to develop detailed designs beyond the conceptual level, which would at that time require complete environmental review pursuant to CEQA. FINDINGS 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update is intended to evaluate the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the City. The plan includes five main sections; 1) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account {BTA} funding and other grant programs. Furthermore, the plan provides supporting information to assist in implementing General Plan Figure C-4, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways. As such, the Plan is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of state law and other city ordinances. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. This document is intended to provide a standardized set of treatments for world-class bicycling streets in the U.S. The result is a unique set of standards aimed at creating safe bicycling conditions to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. ATTACHMENTS PC Resolution Draft CC Resolution Draft Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Notice of Public Hearing PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR13-0001, MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) SECTION 15262, FEASIBILITY, AND PLANNING STUDIES Section 1 . Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Can January 3, 2013, the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Long Range Planning Application for Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. On May 14, 2013: the City of Temecula entered into an agreement with KTU+A Consulting to update the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. C. On October 26, 2013: the City of Temecula hosted a Public Workshop at the Mercantile Theater at 42051 Main Street. The Public Workshop included the presentation of maps and background data, as well as a launch of the www.hikebiketemecula.org, which included an online survey 400 people filled out and provided more than 550 comments. D. On May 10, 2014: the City hosted a Hike Bike Event, which included opportunities to review draft maps; and walk or ride portions of trails or bike routes in and around Old Town. E. On April 12, 2016, Staff met with the Trails Subcommittee to present a summary of the plan, and a s&edule to take to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, Community Services Commission: and Planning Commission for input prior to consideration by the City Counci` in May, which is nationally recognized as Bike Month. F. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was prepared to allow for an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2002. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections: 1) History. Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. G_ The City-initiated Long Range Planning Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. H. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on May 18, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. I. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve Long Range Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Development Code Section 1 7.05.010 A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City, The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update is intended to evaluate the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the City. The plan includes five main sections; 9) History, Trends and Project Goals, 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding ,Sources, and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTC) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA) funding and other grant programs. Furthermore, the plan provides supporting information to assist in implementing General Plan Figure C-4, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways. As such, the Plan is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of state law and other city ordinances. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTC) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. This document is intended to provide a standardized set of treatments for world-class bicycling streets in the U.S. The result is a unique set of standards aimed at creating safe bicycling conditions to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Section 3_ Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Long Range Planning Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be statutorily exempt from further environmental review based on Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. 1. Adoption of this Plan is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15262 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions, which actions the City Council has not approved, adopted, or funded, does not require preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors. Consistent with this exemption, the plan is limited to the preparation of concept plans and recognizes various environmental factors in the area such as aesthetic, historic and biological resources. The concept plans identified in Section 5, Gap Closure Alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts on the environment. In addition, the alternatives illustrate one option for closing a bike lane or trail gap. Other options may be considered using the Toolbox, Design Guidelines in Appendix A. The plan is limited to concept plans only, and does not include design engineered plans. Therefore, the plan qualifies for this exemption. Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve Long Range Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 18th day of May 2016. Ron Guerriero, Chairman ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [S EAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA } I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 181h day of May 2016, by the following vote- AYES: ote:AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary C:\Program Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverkerProltemp\NVDC\12Q68D62-C3DA-4F37-AF45-099EE180281C\12718.docx DRAFT CC RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO APPROVE LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR13-0001, MULTI-USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITY ACT (CEQA) SECTION 15262, FEASIBILITY, AND PLANNING STUDIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that. A. On. January 3, 2013; the City of Temecula filed Planning Application No. LR13-0001 , Long Range Planning Application for Multi-Else Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. On May 14: 2013, the City of Temecula entered into an agreement with KTU+A Consulting to update the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. C. On October 26, 2013, the City of Temecula hosted a Public Workshop at the Mercantile Theater at 42051 Main Street. The Public Workshop inc uded the presentation of maps and background data, as well as a launch of the www.hikebiketemecula.org, which included an online survey 400 people filled out and provided more than 550 comments_ D. On May 10, 2014, t1he City hosted a Hike Bike Event, which included opportunities to review draft maps, and walk or ride portions of trails or bike routes in and around Old Town. E On April 12, 2016, Staff met with the Trails Subcommittee to present a summary of the plan, and a schedule to take to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, Community Services Commission, and Planning Commission for input prior to consideration by the City Council in May, -which is nationally recognized as Bike Month F. The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was prepared to allow for an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2002. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections; 1) History, Trends and Project Goals, 2) Analysis of the Existing Network, 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sou,ces; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials ;NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. G. The City-initiated Long Range Planning Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. H. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on May 18, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. I. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve Long Range Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Multi- Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City, The Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update is intended to evaluate the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the City. The plan includes five main sections, 9) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network, 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources, and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTR) funding and other grant programs. Furthermore, the plan provides supporting information to assist in implementing General Plan Figure C-4, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways. As such, the Plan is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of state law and other city ordinances. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NRCTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. This document is intended to provide a standardized set of treatments for world-class bicycling streets in the U.S. The result is a unique set of standards aimed at creating safe bicycling conditions to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Long Range Planning Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be statutorily exempt from further environmental review based on Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. Adoption of this Plan is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 95262 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions, which actions the City Council has not approved, adopted, or funded, does not require preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors. Consistent with this exemption, the plan is limited to the preparation of concept plans and recognizes various environmental factors in the area such as aesthetic, historic and biological resources. The concept plans identified in Section 5, Gap Closure Alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts on the environment. in addition, the alternatives illustrate one option for closing a bike lane or trail gap. Other options may be considered using the Toolbox, Design Guidelines in Appendix A. The plan is limited to concept plans only, and does not include design engineered plans. Therefore, the plan qualifies for this exemption. Section 4. Recommendation. The City Council approve Long Range Planning Application No. LR13-0001, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24t" day of May, 2016. Mike Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE } ss CITY OF TEMECULA } I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk MULTI-USE TRAILS AN❑ BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN CmIty Of Teme ul i m . - I 1mi ils and Bike Plan � y � wi 14 Runny �' f ■ California HIKEBIKETEMECULA.O March 2016 Acknowledgements This City of Temecula Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update was prepared under the guidance of Matt Peters,AICP, Associate Planner with assistance from: Aaron Adams, City Manager Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager -"' Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works Jerry Gonzalez, Traffic Engineer Lynn Lehner, Senior Management Analyst and members of the Council Trails/Open Space Ad Hoc Subcommittee: Mike Naggar, Mayor Pro Tem Matt Rahn, Council Member �+ Chuck Washington, former Mayor and Council Member This plan was prepared by KTU+A Planning * Landscape Architecture: John Holloway, PLA,AS LA, LEED Green Associate, LCI, Project Manager Joe Punsalan, LISP, PTP, LCI, Senior Associate Planner Pfan^i nG Lvd=caoe Arcnitecture Diana Smith, GISP, GIS Analyst Alison Moss, Mobility Planner Kristin Bleile, GIS Analyst Jacob Leon, Senior Planner FE H R P E E R S Transportation engineering support was provided by Fehr& Peers. Michael Baker Outreach support was provided by Michael Baker International. I N T E R N A T I O N A L lip PAST 1� BullCity of Temecula,California-Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIMEMECUMORG `table of Contents Executive Summary I Pian Background and Goals 1 Plan Scope 1 Public Participation 1 Implementation Highlights 2 LAB Bicycle Friendly Community 2 Conclusion 2 l�ti Introduction 3 Brief History of Temecula 3 - Active Transportation Trends 3 Plan Scope 3 Study Area 3 Methodology 3 Plan Background and Goals 4 Facility Types 6 Relevant Planning Documents 10 Adjacent Jurisdiction Plans 13 Applicable Legislation and Regulations 16 Analysis 19 Existing Trail and Bikeways Systems 19 Connectivity Issues and Opportunities 19 Trail and Bikeways Users and Abilities 21 Trip Origin and Destination Analysis 23 Cyclist and Pedestrian Collisions Analysis 27 Problematic Locations for Cyclists, Horses and Pedestrians 34 Level of Traffic Stress Analysis 35 Health Benefits 44 Economic Benefits 47 Neighborhood Electric Vehicles 48 BikeShare 50 Emerging Technologies 52 3 Recommended Trails and Bikeways 55 Implementation 55 Suggested Bicycle Routes 55 Temecula as Regional Trail Hub 60 Trailheads and Access Points 63 Pump Tracks/Bike Skills Parks 63 Best Practices Maintenance Program 66 RTA Bus Stops 69 Promenade Temecula 70 Old Town Bike Friendly Business District 71 4 Programs and Funding Sources 73 45 Gap Closure Alternatives (GCAs) 85 iii Table of Contents Figures Figure I —Study Area 5 Figure 2—Riverside County Southwest Area Plan -Trails and Bikeways System 14 Figure 3—Existing Trails and Bikeways 20 Figure 4—The Four Types of Cyclists 22 Figure 5— Papulation Density 24 Figure 6— Employment Density 25 Figure 7-Activity Centers 26 Figure 8—Bike Collisions 28 Figure 9—Pedestrian Collisions 32 Figure 10—Level of Traffic Stress 37 Figures 11a-c—Low Stress Routes 39 Figure 12—Safe Routes to School LTS Analysis 43 Figure 13 —Existing and Proposed Trails(Natural Surface and Paved Class 1) 56 Figure 14—Existing and Proposed Bike Lanes (On-street Bikeways-Class 11 and III) 57 Figure 15—Composite Trails and Bikeways 58 Figure 16 —Suggested Bicycle Routes 59 Figure 17—Proposed Murrieta Creek Trail System 59 Figure 18—Gap Closure Alternatives 86 Tables Table 1 —QLMP`transportation Mobility and Connection Indicators 12 Table 2—Bike Collision Summary 29 Table 3— Pedestrian Collision Summary 33 Table 4-Level of Traffic Stress 36 Table 5—Potential Funding Sources 77 Appendices A. Toolbox; Design Guidelines App1 B. Sidewalk Analysis App75 C. Community Input Summary App80 D. Rules of the Road App$4 E. BFC Checklist App87 F. BTA (Reviewer Checklist App88 } L M" IR City of Temecula,California•Muni-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKE B IKETEMECULA.0 RG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Plan Background and Goals Plan Scope This Trails and Bikeways Master Plan(TBMP)is a While the 2002 TBMP comprehensively evalu- comprehensive 2002 plan update,and is intended ated Temecula's trail and bikeway potential and to guide the City's future trail and bicycle facility recommended a number of new facilities and m- implementation.The process included evaluating provements to existing ones,this update focused ,! previously and newly proposed trails and on- instead on re-evaluating and supplementing the street bicycle facilities using conventional field original recommendations with additional facilities techniques,geographic information systems(GIS) through gap analysis,incorporating modifications analysis,and public input via community meetings, inspired by the latest standards and guidelines, j 11 wadkinglbik ng events and online surveys. and developing gap closure plans conforming with the most up-to-date design guidelines. A. The City of Temecula originally surveyed its residents in 1991 to determine their desires for City services and to set priorities. Residents Public Participation expressed strong interest in a well-defined trail Public participation has always been a hallmark system that served the following functions: of Temecula's planning process. It was through • Access key City and regional desfdnations Public input, not long after the City's incorpora- tion, that the demand for non-motorized trails • Serve as recreation and transportation routes first arose and spawned the original trails and ■ Connect neighborhoods to parks, schools, bikeways master plan in 2002. employment and commercial areas • Form loops that follow creeks and utility ease- The public input for this master plan update meats wherever feasible included an online survey that generated more than 400 responses and 550 written comments, This strong citizen interest in what is now known two weld-attended community workshops, a as"active transportation"persists,as expressed -H 1 ke/Bi ke"walking and biking event in Old Town by survey and workshop respondents for the Temecula that kicked off at City Hall, and several 2002 TBMP and for this implementation update. meetings with the City Council Trails Subcommit- "The trail experience is becoming increasingly tee, attended by City staff and project managers, desirable, whether the trail users ride bicycles along with the consultant team.Among the most or horses, run, walk or birdwatch. Recent sur- important findings was that while nearly half of veys have shown that homeowners along trails survey respondents answered that they never experience less crime and have actually expe- commute by bicycle,almost 60 percent said they rienced disproportionate increases in property would use safe and easily accessible paths to values compared to their neighbors whose work or school to commute. properties are not adjacent to the trail system.» The 2002 TBMP's survey results established that Temecula residents felt trails and bikeways were important to quality of life and that the City should develop a community-wide, interconnected trail Community Workshop-October 2093 and bikeway system connecting schools, paries and other areas of interest to support both active + transportation and recreation. IIiE _ r c 4� Chapter 1:Introduction Furthermore,four out of five survey respondents 2002 TBMP facility recommendations were said they would ride more if there were safe and freshly analyzed for this plan,paying particular at- easily accessible paths between where they live tention to facility gaps highlighted by more recent and commercial destinations. This strong com- public input, along with other newly suggested munity response directly influenced plan recom- routes. Among the updated techniques were a mendations, especially desired destinations, bicycle boulevard appraisal employing level of facility types and specific routes. (See Appendix traffic stress(LTS)analysis,a GIS technique that C for a summary of community input.) helps to define the likely comfort or discomfort a typical cyclist may feel on a particular roadway. Branding was also developed,including a distinc- tive "HikeBikeTemecula"logo and color scheme While some 2002 recommendations specifics used on all project materials, and will continue were modified,many original proposals remained to be used throughout plan implementation. For high priorities and were developed along with new example, the logo is recommended as a unify- GCAs in Chapter 5, ing feature on wayfinding signage, mapping and the HikeBikeTemecula web presence. The City LAB Bicycle Friendly Community launched a HikeBikeTemecula website specifi- The League of American Bicyclists'(LAB)named cally to highlight and promote its trail and bikeway Temecula a Bronze level Bicycle Friendly Com- efforts,and to acquaint citizens with future plans. munity(BFC) in 2013, and the City would like to For example, gap closure alternatives (GCAs) improve on its initial designation. To help cities descriptive cut-sheets are available for review achieve higher levels(Silver,Gold, Platinum and and download from the website via links to an Diamond), the LAB provides a checklist defin- overall system map. ing what a city needs to accomplish to achieve higher designation (See Appendix E). The City _ Implementation Highlights and consultants strove through this TBMP update Much has changed in the mobility planning world to address checklist items by recommending en- since the original TBMP was prepared in 2002, gineering,education, policy and encouragement especially a greater focus on adapting streets to improvements, a "bundled" approach that has support active transportation,including wider ac- proved successful in other cities. ceptance of innovative on-street bicycle facilities. These elements reflect an expanding emphasis Conclusion on the needs of accommodating all roadway us- While this trails and bikeways plan addressed ers, including vulnerable ones, and the types of active transportation through recommending bike facilities required to provide true mobility choices lanes,sidewalk improvements, paved paths and for all. Another important change is greater ac- natural surface trails throughout the City,the City ceptance of off-street facilities as not just rec reational amenities, but Integral transportation worked with the mobility planning consultant to address the community's desire to link these non- system components. This updated plan reflects this new mobility environment with up-to-date motorized facilities into a truly comprehensive facility design guidelines and recommendations. network that connects the kinds of destinations residents want to access by bike or on foot,espe- `Hike/8ike"event kick-off at City Hall-May 2015 cially Schools, parks, open space, and shopping and employment centers (See Figure 15). Upon implementation, the result of these efforts will be an interconnected network designed to encourage more residents to get around via ac- tive transportation rather than by driving, which - survey respondents strongly supported. Plan recommendations are described in Chapter 3 and specific GCAs in Chapter 5. 2 City of Temecula,California-Mult-use Traits and Bikeways Master Plan Update HI KE BI K ETEM EC ULA.O€tG i INTRODUCTION Brief History of Temecula Temecula was originally a Luisei10 village near driving levels and increased preference'or walk- wh ere Temecula and Murrieta Creeks join to form able, bikeable and transit-connected communities the Santa Margarita River, immediately west of among both Millennials and Empty Nesters is Interstate 15. The Luisenos moved upstream on well documented. Millennials, in particular, are Temecula Creek in the early 1800's until they interested in living where getting around does not were evicted in 1875.The site had been develop- immediately imply driving a motor vehicle. They ing into an.American settlement alongthe South- are driving less and walking: biking and taking ern Emigrant Trail since the 1850's and became transit at significantly higher levels than previous known as Old Temecula. generations. It is clear that this next generation of workers - and consumers - are less interested Following Mexican independence and transfer in driving than their parents. to American control, Temecula Valley's former Spanish ranchos became large-scale beef cattle Reasons for this trend likely include a blend of a operations that gave way to suburban develop- sluggish economy(i.e. unemployed people drive ment such as Rancho California in the 1960's. less), increased use of technology (i.e. virtual interaction has replaced some face-to-face inter- Incorporated in 1989, Temecula's population action), and a changing culture (i.e. preference grew rapidly as families were drawn from San for cities over suburbs and walkable places over Diego and Orange Counties by its relatively drivable places), affordable housing. The latest Department of Finance statistic estimated Temecula's popula- Empty Nesters,particularly as the number of Baby tion at 108,920. The city has become a tourist Boomers reaching retirement age accelerates, destination highlighted by Old Town Temecula, are also showing a strong preference for com- the Promenade Temecula mall, the Pechanga munities that support walking and provide public Resort and Casino, the nearby Temecula Valley transportation. Recent American Association of Wine Country and the annual Temecula Valley Retired Persons (AARP) surreys found that 70 Balloon and Wine Festival, percent of respondents age 65 and older agreed that living near where they want to go, such as Active Transportation Trends grocery stores, doctors'offices, libraries and so- Man American cities were built on a foundation cial or religious organizations, was extremely or y very important. Additionally, 51 percent agreed of auto-centric infrastructure, programs and poli- that it was extremely or very important to be able cies, but many of those same cities are embracing to walk easily in their community. Temecula is a active transportation as option to driving. Some young city,with 92 percent of its population under of them are making minor improvements to sup- 65 and 68 percent under 45, but decision makers port cycling and walking,while ethers are working should be aware of these demographic trends hard to undo decades of planning that privileged and their community composition when making vehicle throughput and speed above all else. transportation decisions. Environmental, health and economic benefits reinforce the task of retrofitting Ame,ican cities Mercedes Street at City Mail to make them bicycle and pedestrian friendly. - !The movement to make cycling and walking vi- able transportation options is also supported by �F several recent pieces of California legislation. According to a recent US Public Interest Re- search Group report,the average American drove ' Ak All six percent less in 2011 than 2004, and among young adults (16 to 34 year olds), car use plum- meted 23 percent from 2001 to 2009. Diminished 3 Chapter 1: Introduction Project Scope Project Background and Goals This Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (TEMP) The City of Temecula originally surveyed its is primarily tool a for implementing the results residents in 1991 to determine their desires for of preceding active transportation planning. Its City services and to set priorities. Residents primary purpose is to guide future bikeways and expressed strong interest in a well-defined trail multi-use trails development wit`iin the City of system that served the following functions: Temecula. It therefore includes revisions to some . Access key City and regional destinations existing facilities and new facility construction,all . Serve as recreation and transportation routes supported by a design guideline `toolbox" (See Chapter 5}. • Connect neighborhoods to parks,. schools, employment and commercial areas Study Area • Form loops that follow creeks and utility ease- ments wherever feasible The TBMP study area was specifically within the City of Temecula corporate boundary. The This strong citizen interest in what is now known adjacent community of Murrieta, as well as as"active transportation"persists, as expressed unincorporated Riverside County areas, were by survey and workshop responcents for the analyzed where opportunities for connections 2002 TBMP and for this implementation update. with Temecula's proposed trail system presented The following primary project goals were part of themselves{See Figure 1). 2002 TBMP development, based on the desired functions noted previously: Methodology T `fin interconnected system of pathways and The TBMP methodology included evaluating bike routes is needed to support a variety of existing and proposed an-street bicycle facilities and trails based on on-site assessment and geo- recreational uses and non-motorized transpar- graphic information systems (GfS) analysis, as taflor� requirements for Temecula resider�fs." well as significant community input via an online 'This system should be community-wide and survey and public meetings, applicable docu- should connect a variety of community and ce- ments review and aerial photography analysis. gional destinations(such as schools,parks and The literature review addressed applicable ex- other areas of interest)and should utilize open cerpts from documents prepared by the City of space corridors, flood control channels, utility Temecula, the City of Murrieta, the County of easements,publicly owned lands ard roadways Riverside, as well as applicable specific plans most appropriate for non-motorized uses. and a variety of specialized trails and bicycling `Trails and bike routes should be provided publications.This included land use data from the to improve the quality of life for residents of County of Riverside and roads and trails data from Temecula, offer transportation alternatives, the City of Temecula incorporated into a project accommodate recreational enjoyment and geographic information system (31S) database. increase the value and connectiveness of GIS is a digital analytical tool that allows users the community" to identify spatial relationships between map features by overlaying data layers representing Multi-usepath along Diaz Road a feature's characteristics and selectively calling up associated information. GIS's core value is its ability to reveal complex spatial relationships that would not otherwise have been noticeable. A The online survey was developed specifically for , this T$MP with the assistance of City staff and the City Council Trails Subcommittee, and made available on the City's website. Participants at .; - - two public meetings also provided a wealth of local knowledge. ` 4 UUMCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKE BIKETEMECU LADRG Figure ?: Study Area MEPv CPA!-'T Lake i . • �fIYDlr � f CAHY( G MEN7FEE , LAKE LAKE ELSIN R E ` i Lime " F 14 "w 79� ! COUNTY r.. i SA DIEGO .+ C UHTY r 14 -'l F51 r 5 Chapter 1:Introduction Facility Types The California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)standard for designated bikeway facility types is used throughout this document. Standardized designation is required for consideration for Caltrans- ad m in altrans-admin ste red bikeway funding. However,this master pian also proposes routes not intended to receive Caltrans bikeway designation because they would be unpaved trails likely to be used primarily for recreation and are referred to as non-motorized multi-use (natural surface) trails. The following are general descriptions of each facility type. See Appendix A for more details. Natural Surface (Non-motorized Multi-use) Trail Route separated from roadways for pedestrian, bicyclist, equestrian and other non-motorized users. Designation generally refers to unpaved natural surface routes that can vary in width and configura- tion, depending upon expected types and numbers of users, local topography and design intent.They are generally surfaced with locally occurring soil, but may be supplemented with decomposed granite (DG) or other appropriate and visually compatible materials as needed. Width is 10 feet maximum; but may be determined on a case-by-case basis depending primarily on likely use levels, and can therefore be narrower where warranted. r Note that some agencies and municipalities refer to all off-street routes, both paved or unpaved, as trails. To avoid confusion, this plan refers to unpaved routes as "trails" and paved routes as "paths." Now City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and$ikeways Master Plan Update H I KEB I KE TE MECUULORGRGRG (Class I) Multi-use Path Caltrans-specified, non-motorized route physically separated from vehicular roadways. Minimum 12 feet wide, of which eight feet are paved and two feet graded on each side. Specific horizontal and vertical clearances also apply.Allows all non-motorized uses, but wider cross section recommended if multiple uses are to be accommodated or if higher volumes are Expected, Generally does not support equestrian use due to paving, but specific situations vary, especially where parallel natural surface trails are provided. ;AL I Y �r i. 9� �' •'j_ a _ -ter ry y • r (Class ll) Bicycle Lane Caltrans-specified,on-street bicycle lane designated by striping and signage with a minimum width of five feet from face of curb or roadway edge where parking occurs, and four feet where parking does not occur, Where parking occurs, buffering is recommended between the bicycle lane and parking Lane. Buffering from vehicle traffic is also recommended where width is available. Many municipalities have successfully upgraded bicycle lanes by widening them to six feet measured from the gutter pan edge instead of the curb face. The additional width is generally repurposed from the vehicle travel lanes; proportionally narrowing them to provide for the wider bicycle lanes, while also providing a vehicle °traffic calming" effect. This additional width functions as buffer space that also allows bicyclists to ride away from the"door zone." 7 Chapter i;Introduction (Class Ill) Bicycle Route Caltrans-specified, on-street bicycle route designated by signage only, but may include shared lane markings ("Sharrows r) and/or"Bikes May Use Full Lane (°BMUFL") signs. Usually installed on road- ways with low traffic volumes and speed limits of no more than 35 mph, (Class IV) Cycle Track Exclusive bicycle facilities separated from vehicular traffic and from walkways. Cycle tracks may be one- or two-way and design treatments demarcate them from adjacent sidewalks, travel or parking lanes.Their physical separation from roadways may employ parked vehicles, planting areas, bollards, raised lanes or a combination of these elements.These treatments reduce the risk of conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians and parked and moving vehicles. By providing physical separation from vehicle traffic, cycle tracks offer a higher degree of security and are attractive to a broader public spectrum, f supported by a strong preference among this plan's survey respondents for "more protection than conventional bike lanes." 8 OUR? City of Temecula, California•MultFuse Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBI KETEMECULA.O RG Bicycle Boulevard U Enhanced Class 111 bicycle routes designed to give travel priority to cyclists on "low-stress' streets by discouraging cut-through vehicle traffic while allowing local access. Most employ traffic calming enhancements, traffic diverters, distinctive pavement markings and higher road surface standards than other streets. Signage supports full lane usage to encourage parity between cyclists anc vehicle drivers. Bicycle-specific signals and detection provide for safer and mare convenient crossing where facilities cross high volume roadways. Because their traffic calming features improve safety for all. including pedestrians, bicycle boulevards are now often designated as"calmed,green or quiet"streets, or "neighborhood byways or parkways." s x Urban Trail (Wide Walkway) Generally concrete walkways, wider than standard sidewalks, either along roadways, within parks or open space. Recommended width 10 feet minimum. Intended for both pedestrian and bicyclist use. SALtVW Chapter 1:Introduction Relevant Planning Documents Multi-Use Trails and Bikeway Master Plan (2002) Non-motorized and alternative Travel Modes The City of Temecula's 2002 Multi-Use Trails and Promotion of alternative travel modes such as Bikeway Master Plan was its first non-motorized bicycle, pedestrian, new technology, and eques- mobility planning effort.The 2002 TBMP`s survey trian modes requires a transportation network results established that Temecula residents felt supporting these modes, providing convenient trails and bikeways were important to quality of access and designed to promote safety. life and that the City should develoo a community- wide, interconnected trail and bikeway system Goal 5 Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized connecting schools, parks and other areas of travel throughout the City. interest to support both active transportation and Policy 5.1 Promote pedestrian and bicycle safety recreation. by adhering to uniform trail standards and practices Temecula General Plan, 2005 Update and communicating safety practices to the public. Several elements within the General Plan offer Policy 5.2 Minimize potential confl cts between support for the recommendations of this plan. off-street bicycle and equestrian trails and auto- Goals and policies most relevant to this plan are mobile cross traffic. excerpted below. Policy 5.3 Ensure the accessibility of pedestrian Circulation Issues, Goals and Policies facilities to the elderly and disabled. Roadway Circulation Policy 5.4 Provide a comprehensive network of Policy 1.2 Pursue trip reduction and transporta- muiti-use trails and bikeways between residen- tion systems management measures to reduce tial areas and commercial/employment activity and limit congestion at intersections and along centers, public institutions, and recreation areas. streets within the City. Policy 5.5 Apply appropriate restrictions (includ- Transportation Demand Management ing prohibiting)to motorized vehicles and cycles using the City's multi-use trail system. Circulation system improvement options in Tern- ecula are limited by various constraints.As the City Policy 5.6 Encourage the provision of facilities continues to develop, it will become increasingly that supaort carpooling and public transportation important to maximize roadway network efficiency within the City, and minimize vehicular travel on City streets.The Traffic Safety foilowing policies'intent is to allow for a proactive approach in achieving these goals. Safe operation of vehicular traffic on City streets is a concern of both City officials and community Goal 3 An efficient City circulation system residents. The following policies are directed through the use of transportation system manage- towards minimizing safety hazards and encour- ment and travel demand management strategies. aging safer operating conditions on City streets. Policy 3.3 Provide a comprehensive system of goal 6 Enhanced traffic safety on City streets. Class I and/or Class II bicycle lanes to meet the needs of cyclists traveling to and from work and Policy 6.1 Enforce speed restrictions throughout other destinations within the City. the City. Policy 3.4 Encourage a mix of uses within prof- Policy 6.2 Require that future roads and improve- ects designed to internalize trips, maximize use ments to current roads be designed to minimize of parking facilities,and promote a shift from auto traffic conflicts which result from curb parking use to pedestrian, bicycle, and other alternative maneuvers, uncontrolled access along heavily modes of travel. traveled roadways, and development of private Policy 3.6 Discourage closing local streets to driveways onto primary residential collector streets. maintain the functionality of the arterial road net- Policy 6.3 Require that vehicular, pedestrian work, achieve public safety goals, and improve and bicycle traffic be separated to the maximum the response time for police,fire,and ambulance extent feasible, especially in areas with high traf- ' services, unless it significantly impacts rural fic volumes, preservation areas. 10 l! 913 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKE BIKETEMECULAARG Policy 6.4 Establish public education and en- Policy 2.2 Require mixed use projects proposed forcement programs to promote safe driving in within Mixed Use Overlay Areas to include a the community. residential component, to contain a mixture of sup- Policyta.5 Work with schools and developers compatible uses, and to provide necessary p porting public and community facilities. to improve circulation at pick-up/drop off areas and encourage that these facilities be provided Policy 2.3 Require preparation of a detailed plan on-site. and a traffic study for all proposed mixed use Policy 6.6 Consider installing traffic calming mea- projects within Mixed Use Overlay Areas. sures on residential streets when other forms of Policy 2.4 Link mixed use projects and village traffic control have not been successful at red uc- centers with trails and potential transit systems, ing traffic speeds. including RTA bus, shuttles and commuterlhigh speed rail. I� " Parking Policy 7.5 Require parking for bicycles and other Policy 2.5 Ensure that the architecture, land- forms of alternative transportation. scope design, and site planning of mixed use projects is of the highest quality, emphasizing a Open Space/Conservation Element Goals pedestrian scale and safe and convenient access and Policies between uses. Trail System Policy 2.6 Ensure adequate public gathering Goal 8 Development of a trail system that serves areas or plazas are incorporated within mixed both recreational and transportation needs. use projects to allow for social interaction and community activities. Policy 8.1 Provide a citywide recreation system Air Quality Element Goals and Policies that connects to the County's regional trail system which provides for bicycling,equestrian,hiking and Air Pollutant Emissions from Automobiles jogging trails with appropriate support facilities. Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollut- Policy 8.2 !Negotiate land deeds as necessary to ant emissions. implement the citywide trail system. Policy 3.1 Use transportation demand reduction Policy 8.3 Require proposed development to pro- techniques to reduce motor vehicle trips. vide trail connections to the citywide trail system Policy 3.2 Use transportation systems manage- through the dedication of land and the provision ment techniques to maintain an orderly flow of of easements. traffic and improve mobility. Policy 8.4 Require development plans to identify Policy 3.3 Pursue development of a public transit locations for an internal trails/sidewalk system system consisting of local shuttle and bus routes, that links land uses and provides convenient as well as bicycle and pedestrian trails that are travel to transit facilities, linked to the regional transit network. Policy 8.5 Develop trails and sidewalks suitable Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient for multiple uses, including for the physically dis- System of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. abled and for personal transportation alternatives. Land Use Goals and Policies Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean- u fueled vehicles,new transportation technologies, Encouraging Mixed Use and combustion engine alternatives for personal Goal 2 Successful,high-quality mixed use devel- and business use. opment projects containing a mix of residential, Policy 3.6 Develop and implement programs that commercial/office,and civic land uses,supported reduce local traffic congestion at peak hours and by alternative modes of transportation. during special events. Policy 2.1 Encourage development of mixed use projects to revitalize older commercial and industrial areas or to create village centers, pro- vided that adequate capacity is available on the roadway system to support such projects. '01 Chapter 1:Introduction Quality of Lite Master Pian 2030 The Quality of Life Master Plan {QLMP) docu- • Meeting new state and federal regulations ments the City's aspirations,goals and strategic and policies requiring that communities re- priorities for the next 20 years and provides a duce greenhouse gas emissions and promote baseline to measure progress over time. Quality sustainability. New programs and resources of life investments will help Temecula retain and are providing incentives for communities to attract both residents and quality jobs to ensure better link transportation planning and land its economic prosperity,the basic foundation of a use;expand choices for transit,biking,pedes- high quality of life. Particularly applicable to this trian trails and non-single car occupancy;and plan are the QLMP's transportation goals: promote High Speed Rail where applicable. • Coordinate land use and transportation to • Working with local and regional transportation create a balanced, modern,integrated trans- partners to leverage existing resources for all portation system available transportation modes. • Increase transportation and mobility options • Building interconnected bicycle and multi- that provide a variety of choice purpose trails one system at a time, with • Expand and enhance the transportation emphasis placed on removal of travel barri- network by completing missing links with ap- ers and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. propriately sized streets • Complete the missing links of bike trails and • Establish a connected pedestrian and bicycle pathways as identified in the Master Plan.Iden- transportation system tify remaining incomplete segments of Class I Bike LaneslTrails and Class 11 Bike Lanes and Temecula"s residents and leaders clearly identi- incorporate projects into the CIP budget. fied several key priorities to achieve the City's Enhance the City's Safe Routes to School transportation mobility and connectivity goals.Ac- Program complishing these priorities also will help the City meet its sustainability goals and become one of The Quality of Life Master Plan also includes the most welcoming, livable and innovative cities indicators by which the City can assess its perfor- in California.To do so,the City's transportation. mance.The indicators or goals developed,as well related planning, design and investments will as the City's progress, are listed below. Pending need to prepare by: the implementation of this plan,Temecula should meet or exceed its goals for miles of Bike Lanes and Multipurpose Trails. Table 1 - QLMP Transportation Mobility and Connection Indicators Meet/ Reeds Indicator Exceeds Progressing Improvement Goals Complete 80 miles of Bikes Innes-show — 55.8 miles or 70 — increase from 2011 baseline percent complete" Complete 78 miles of Multipurpose Trails 28.8 miles or 34 -show increase from 20'11 baseline percent complete* Maintain a"Very Walkable"rating for did Town;70-89 is a rating of"Very Waikabie" Rating: 77 based on Walk Score® Maintain a "Walkable" Rating for a City- wide average: 50-69 is a rating of"Walk- Ratio 44 able" based on Walk ScoreC�; less than g 50 is very car dependent "Figures updated March 2016 12 OBigCity of Temecula,California•Mufti-use Trails and Bikeways Master Ran update HIKESIKEnNIECUL1 M Adjacent Jurisdictions Plans County of Riverside Trail Planning Temecula is bounded by the City of Murrieta along Much of the area surrounding Temecula is un- its northern boundary and by unincorporated incorporated County of Riverside. Six regionally County land around the remainder of the City, significant prcposed routes are shown on a draft except for the Pechanga Indian Reservation at 2009 Riverside County Southwest Area Pian — the City limits in the southeast portion of the City. Trails and Bikeway System map in Figure 2 on The City of Murrieta and the County have their the following page. These include two "Class I own trail planning efforts at different levels of de- Bike Paths," one paralleling Leon Road through tail and stages of implementation. The planning Murrieta to the northern City limit and another process included contacting the surrounding ju- along Butterfield Stage Road between Pauba risdictions to ensure the development of concepts Road and La Serena Road. and alignments would be compatible with those of the surrounding areas.R summary of the issues A "Combination Trail (Regional/Class IBike rbelow, is shown paralleling Rancho California regarding each community is presented The City should continue to maintain periodic Road and terminating at Butterfield Stage Road. contact with surrounding jurisdictions to ensure Another parallels Anza Road and connects with that the linkages necessary to achieve aregion- Temecula's eastern City limit near Temecula ally connecting trail system are accomplished. Parkway and loops dawn to the southeast adja- cent to the city limit near the Redhawk commu- City of Murrieta General Plan nity, Just north of that trail lies a "Regional Trail" Circulation Element paralleling Verde and Monte Verde Roads to the The City of Murrieta forms the northern border southern City limit. with Temecula between Winchester Road west- Finally, the Southern Emigrant "Historic Trail" is ward to the base of the Santa Rosa Plateau west shown paralleling Temecula Parkway from the of Murrieta Creek. Roadways directly connecting southeast City limit to Interstate 15 where it then with Temecula with existing Class II bicycle lanes turns to follow Murrieta Creek northward into include Date Street, Margarita Road and Win- Murrieta. (See Chapter 3-Temecula as Regional Chester Road east of Interstate 15 ane Jefferson Trail Hub.) Avenue west of the freeway. Metropolitan Water District Proposed bikeway facilities will be additional The Metropolitan Water District(MWD)owns and Class II lanes on Murrieta Hot Springs Road and an Jackson Avenue east of Interstate 15, as well operates aqueducts on their own property or via as on Washington Avenue and Adams Avenue easements that cross the entire City of Temecula. west of the freeway.A"multi-purpose trail"is also These aqueducts run in a generally northlsouth proposed along Washington Avenue that then orientation, cutting across what is essentially branches off eastward just north of Temecula. the City's geographical center. These aqueducts (See City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation have surface access in the form of dirt roads that Element Figure 5-1.) are almost fully contiguous with the underlying aqueducts except in the areas of steepest ter- rain- The aqueduct alignments predate the City Multi-use path along Diaz Road of Temecula's incorporation by several decades. Over the years, these aqueduct easements have been routinely assumed to be likely non. motorized trail routes by a number of planning agencies. However, interviews with MWD staff concerning this type of use indicated that MWD customarily applies regulations to its acueducts that directly affects potential trails development - r planned along them. While non-trail specific alterations such as landscaping (outside a pipe- line corridor) are welcomed. rules governing equestrian use and grading for trails raise special concerns. 13 Chapter 1:Introduction Figure 2:Riverside County Southwest Area Plan-Trails and Bikeway System `F p CITY OF ` CITY DF aha �, AN JACiNT r PERRIS, I CITY OF a � I - �•�-.r HEMET € rY ufira lE• i F' CITY OF --� _ MENIFEE •^"^ Irr OF " LAKE E INORE c w l Thr .e..a , •rw•s,.f r P CITY OF _70 "w WILOOMAR e,'� M 4/ilPsk �`. CITY OF MURRIETA ,s.� =•virti"e 4 cl..lY it .� �/ �' M'•+y�•icy� � {r J�,P 0 siT A PurEAU ti 'y"f 1. CITY OF yy' ,7-'•,-E"d rt. TEMECULA Un DWgo CouN.y ls/ievwn"YrN �!luwav — t./cw�,lyM1� �wa q..ff.nNy fr+u+FYM Mlaa,.we gl"Iq 4WN A4 ewlw:l,My�wnpM,P.+�,f�!/!eN IN!wf G.MM.OWrkR A/t.lafr!laM1rfarM.n•6,cr..fw Mnl rAMnalnf Wl��'M1•.N nah analwf4w,elrsgMsGryfiMMawpdwtlw rl n"w,se e.�la, /A/oas s eat nn r Im��..sf�imMMr MwbPo!"+V�M.d aaw 6ac.,w_rf I �n/1 clasaall Pln /0/NvY.w+. Mst'fMlwi lw,�•n�.wl.PeeiV�M.rM>!.�•Md�.N..rNlr�,bn .I .'vr ol.nlw+.nii M.IgMkaA.r.Y'+nWVMwMI..e Nw,WnwMwlw ufm�+a.r�eus .h./'onq"o!nl�ss rw! e�irM!lbid�u l4lla N.�ngbwM .4,d !a,lkAff•W !eJ!lse,c rr.! eagaw+ylr.,p.n•iwera art nrwmeK..+axwe+weaa c.w...wamff i+w M1•! sws.rr w�..s. r.+��.+m nn:"w..�w.owma FigUre8 f�f neNf Tr+, W w M,lhllatlla�fW sll,+!!llYf"{d P!w w.wrww!w+.n+ January 13,2010 ' DRAFT ,,, ;g-„, a „„, ,,,;; SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN ....M ea,aw`weµe"s++lw •r, LCIS TRAILS AND BIKEWAY a 3 s f a�.�. �!4l.�..«�.4a,�w... SYSTEM! 14 OsloCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULA,DRG US Army Corps of Engineers MWD has strict regulations governing equestrian Flooding has been an ongoing problem in the use along its aqueduct easements. Horses are Murrieta Creek area,causing significant damage simply not allowed within its easements or on to the Old Town area of Temecula as recently as property it owns, except in areas where they 1993 and is expected to get worse with increased would be 25 feet below the adjacent pipeline's watershed development, Flooding problems in invert level and laterally separated by at least the Murrieta Creek watershed are related to the 100 feet. Essentially, this means that equestrian existing drainage system's inadequate capacity, use along t.ne aqueducts is not possible because particularly in the Old Town Temecula area, In the combined vertical and horizontal offset is response, the Corps of Engineers completed not known to occur anywhere in Temecula. This a Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental regulation is intended to prevent pathogens Restoration and Recreation Final Feasibility Re- from entering the water system following a pipe port, dated September 2000. breakage and subsequent repair. According to MIND staff, shutting off an aqueduct pipeline The study's planning goals included reducing and emptying it for repairs can create sufficient flood inundation damage.,. reducing the costs of vacuum to pull potentially pathogen-laden water flood insurance, restoring the riverine ecosystem from surrounding soil and into the pipe. and providing recreational opportunities.The plan calls for 12 foot wide combination service roads/ As well as not allowing horses near pipelines, trails along both sides of the creek, with the west MWD also allows no change in grade of more side facility designated for equestrian use and the than one foot within its jurisdiction. This is in- east side for pedestrian and bicycle use. A foot- tended to protect pipeline cover because MWD bridge is planned across Santa Gertrudis Creek cannot be certain how much cover exists over its and a trail undercrossing of Winchester Road. pipelines. MWD's concern is that reducing cover- The plan also indicates a crossing of Murrieta age may endanger pipes by making them more Creek just north of the confluence of the Santa likely to be exposed, while increasing coverage Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks at Diaz Road, could place excessive strain on aging pipes, where a service road would cross a levee struc- Therefore, any change in grade of more than one tore forming the outlet of a large detention basin. foot, either cut or fill, may not be allowed. This The Final Feasibility Report was updated in 2014 can be problematic in areas of steep terrain where to reflect several changes. The most relevant to switchbacks are likely to be a desirable method of routing a trail, or even the only workable method. this e Trails and Bikeway Master Plan Update Is s the following:. Riverside County Flood Control and "Construction of maintenance roads on the Water Conservation District east and west channel banks; the west side The Riverside County Flood Control and Water maintenance road would also be used as a Conservation District (RCFCWCD) jurisdiction recreation'railforpedesfrians, bicyclists, and within Terr:ecula includes all creek beds and ad- equestrians;the east bank would be used as jacent maintenance roads. These roadways are a pedestrian and bicycle trail." generally hard-packed natural surfaced and wide enough to allow large equipment access to the Southern California Edison Electric Company creek beds for seasonal riparian plant clearing The Southern California Edison Electric Company and any other needed maintenance. Most seg- (SCE) ovens and operates several power lines meats are Currently fenced and gated, However,a on their own property in fee simple ownership substantial segment along Santa Gertrudis Creek or via easements. In most cases, these ease- has been paved and striped as a multi-purpose ments cross multiple privately owned parcels trail. RCFCWCD representatives indicated that and do not have associated roadways or other additional trail installations are feasible if three access. For example, power line segments pass criteria can be met. They are (1)that the agency over rear property line fences between the back not pay for any improvements,(2)that the agency yards of residential developments over significant be indemnified and (3) that any improvements distances. not reduce existing channel cross-sections. The agency welcomes any trail proposal that fulfills these three basic criteria. 15 Chapter 1:Introduction Pechanga Indian Reservation Applicable Legislation and The Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Regulations owns and operates the Pechanga Resort and Several pieces of State of California legislation Casino on the southeast edge of Temecula along support increased bicycling and walking. Some Temecula Creek. This includes a casino and RV address greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and park. Reservation property encompasses a signifi- empioy bicycling and walking as means to cant portion of the creek bed in this area. Luiseho achieve reduction targets. Other legislation high- tribal representatives indicated to City of Temecula lights the intrinsic worth of bicycling and walking staff that trails access has been discussed, but no and treats the safe and convenient accommoda- formal planning has been undertaken. tion of cyclists and walkers as a matter of equity. San Diego Association of Governments The most relevant legislation concerning bicycle and pedestrian policy, planning,infrastructure and The San Diego Association of Governments programs are described in the following sections. (SAN DAG)is the metropolitan planning organiza- tion{MPO}governing San Diego County. Though State Legislation and Policies within Riverside County, Temecula lies less than Ag-32 global Warming Solutions Act two miles north of the San Diego County line. AB-32 calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas According to SANDAL, the sole non-motorized connection between Riverside and San Diego emissions and codifies a 2020 emissions reduc- Counties is Class II bike lanes on Old Highway tion goal. This act also directs the California Air Resources Board to develop specific early actions 395 that begin at the county line south of the inter- to reduce greenhouse gases, while also prepar- section of Old Highway 395 and Rainbow Valley) ing a scoping plan to identify how best to achieve Rainbow Canyon Road, then continue south ap- proximately 3.7 to an Interstate 15 interchange, the 202a limit. From this point, cyclists can continue west over SB-375 Redesigning Communities to Interstate 15 and then onto Class 11 bike lanes Reduce Greenhouse Gases on East Mission Road approximately 3.3 miles to This bill seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled the community of Fall brook, or continue south via Class II bike lanes on Old Highway 395 approxi- through land use and planning incentives. Key mately 18 miles to the City of Escondido. North of provisions require the larger regional transporta- the county line, Rainbow Canyon Road continues tion planning agencies to develop more sophisti- approximately 3.2 miles to Pechanga Parkway cated transportation planning models, and to use near its intersection with Temecula Parkway, but them for the purpose of creating"preferred growth this segment's pavement width is roughly 10 feet scenarios" in their regional plans that reduce narrower than the segment within San Diego greenhcuse gas emissions.The bill also provides County, with significant curves and grades, incentives for local governments to incorporate these preferred growth scenarios into their gen- eral land use plans transportation elements, AB-1358 Complete Streets Act AB-1358 requires a city or county legislative body, upon revision of their general plan c.rculation ele- ment, to identify how the jurisdiction will provide for the routine accommodation of all roadway users Including drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, seniors and public transit users. The bill also directs the Governor's Office of Planning Research (OPR) to amend guidelines for general plan circulation element development so that the building and operation} of local transportation facilities safely and con- veniently accommodate everyone, regardless of their travel mode, mai UAm-mana}a City of Temecula„California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Flan Update 1INIKEE BIKETEMEC u LA.aiRG AB-1881 Bicycle and Motorcycle Traffic Signal Actuation This bili defines a traffic control device as a This is extremely important because adequately traffic-actuated signal that displays one or more accommodating cyclists, particularly in built-out of its indications in response to the presence of environments, often requires reallocation of traffic detected by mechanical, visual, electrical right-of-way and the potential for increased mo- or other means. When placing or replacing a for vehicular congestion.The reframing of Level traffic-actuated signal, it must be installed and of Service as a matter of driver inconvenience, maintained to detect bicycle or motorcycle traffic. rather than an environmental impact,allows plan- r Caltrans has adopted standards for implementing ners to assess the true impacts of transportation the legislat'on. projects and will help support bicycling projects L, that improve mobility for all roadway users. AB-1371 Passing QistancedThree Feet for Safety Act AB-1193 Bikeways This statute,widely referred to as the"Three Foot This act amends various code sections,all relating Passing Law,"requires drivers to provide at least to bikeways in general,specifically by recognizing three feet of clearance when passing cyclists. If a fourth class of bicycle facility, cycle tracks. traffic or roadway conditions prevent drivers from giving cyclists three feet of clearance,they roust It is important to note that existing law requires "slaw to a speed that is reasonable and prudent" Caltrans, in cooperation with county and city and wait until they reach a point where passing governments,to establish minimum safety design can occur without endangering the cyclist. Vio- criteria for the planning and construction of bike- lations are punishable by a $35 base fine, but ways, and requires the department to establish drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them uniform specifications and symbols regarding in violation of the law are subject to a $220 fine. bicycle travel and traffic related matters.Existing law also requires all cities, county, regional and SB-743 CEQA Reform other local agencies responsible for the develop- Just as important as the previous pieces of ment or operation of bikeways or roadways to legislation that support increases in bicycling utilize all of those minimum safety design criteria and walking infrastructure and accommodation and uviform specifications and symbols. is one that promises to remove a longstanding This bill revises these provisions to require roadblock to them. That roadblock is vehicular Caltrans to establish minimum safety design cri- Level of Seance (LOS) and the legislation with teria for each type of bikeway, including the new the potential to remove it is S13-743. Class IV cycle tracks. However, the potentially For decades, vehicular congestion has been most significant impact this bili will have on future interpreted as an environmental impact and has bikeway development is that it authorizes local often stymied on-street bicycle projects in par- agencies to utilize different minimum safety cri- ticular. Projections of degraded Level of Service terra if adopted by resolution at a public meeting. have, at a minimum,driven up project costs and, at a maximum,precluded projects altogether.SB- 743 could completely remove LOS as a measure of vehicle traffic congestion that must be used to analyze environmental impacts under the Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). 17 Chapter 1:introduction Caltrans' Deputy Directive 64-R1 Deputy Directive 64-R1 is a policy statement af- Of those three categories, the first two will now fecting Caltrans mobility planning and projects be allowed on any infrastructure where conven- requiring the agency to: tional bicycles are allowed, but the bill also pro- vides local authorities the specific ability to limit ,provide for the needs of travelers of all or prohibit those uses. Class III electric bikes or ages and abilities in all planning, program- any bikes with non-electric motor would not be ming, design, construction, operations, and allowed on off-street paths,but could still be used maintenance activities and products on the on on-street bike lanes.The changes would apply State highway system. The Department views to the state's vehicle code and would not affect all transportation improvements as opportuni- open space trails or public lands access rules. ties to improve safety, access, and mobility for ail travelers in California and recognizes CEQA for Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as in- According to the Association of Environmental tegral elements of the transportation system.' Professionals 2014. CEQA Guidelines 229,a proj- The directive goes on to mention the environ- ect involving only feasibility or planning studies mental, health and economic benefits of more for possible future actions that an agency has not Complete Streets.This directive has been instru- approved, adopted or funded, does not require mental in achieving more equitable consideration an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require of non-motorized roadway users in highway consideration of environmental factors. This has project planning and design, been supported by numerous cities and counties, as well as State agencies. AB-902 Diversion Programs Planning projects such as this trails and bikeways This bill was signed in September 2015 and spon- master plan are exempt from CEQA analysis sored Dy the California Bicycle Coalition. It allows since they are comprised of planning and con- local jurisdictions to create diversion programs Ceptual recommendations.However,as individual that allow ticketed cyclists to have their tickets recommendations move forward through design removed from their records if they successfully and implementation, the City will meed to deter- complete a bicycle training course. This type of mine if there are impacts associated with them for progre m has been available for children for some which environmental review may be necessary. time, but this legislation expands availability to adults. It also offers all cyclists, ticketed or not, Federal Legislation more opportunities to learn the rules of the road Safe Streets Act (S-2004/HR-2468) and safe bicycle handling skills. HR-2468 encourages safer streets through policy AB-1096 Redefine Electric Bikes adoptior at the state and regional levels, mir- The b.11 was passed by the California Senate tri coring an approach already being L,Sed in many September 2415 and awaiting the Governor's local jurisdictions, regional agencies and states signature. it would replace California's existing governments. The bill calls upon all states and vehicle law that does not allow motorized bicycles metropolitan planning organizations (MPCs) to on non-motorized paths. The updated law splits adopt Safe Streets policies for federally funded e-bikes from other motorized bikes and divide Construction and roadway improvement projects them into three categories: within two years. Federal legislation will ensure consistency and flexibility in road-building pro- • Class I: pedal-assisted electric bike with atop cesses and standards at all levels of governance. assisted speed of 20mph • Class ll;pedal-assisted or propelled unassist- ed with a top motor-driven speed of 20mph • Class III: pedal-assisted electric 'bike with a top assisted speed of 2$mph i8 fil ,�A + °' City of Temecula,California•Muni-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update NIKEBfKETEMEMA ARG ANALYSIS 2 Existing Trail and Bikeways Systems Connectivity issues and Opportunities In many growing southern California cities, non- As stated in the previous section, the existing motorized bikeway and trail network development bikeway and trail network is fragmented due to has not kept up with demand.Though bikeways specific development circumstances, existing and trails are often conditioned as part of devel- conditions and roadway layout.Temecula's street opment,this can result in disconnected facilities. network relies on arterials and collectors to con- I In many cities, planning is underway to address nect the City,which places pedestrians and bicy- system gaps through re-striping streets to real- clists on high-speed, high-volume streets. Open locate space to bicycle facilities,updating bicycle space,topography,easements and flood control and trails master planning, and securing grants channels play a pall in the way the City's streets for facility construction. are laid out, which tends to create connectivity issues for non-motorized users. Many of Temecula's existing bicycle facilities are Class II bicycle lanes on arterial and collector While bikeways can sometimes be easily accom- streets. However,there are some significant gaps modated by striping bicycle lanes, adding side- between existing facility segments on the same walks for pedestrians requires additional costs, roadways, such as on Ynez Road, Meadows such as potential structural,storm water and other Parkway and Margarita Road. Shared lanes, or utility modifications.Some neighborhoods prefer Class III bicycle routes,exist only within Old Town, a rural environment and discourage sidewalk where they have been enhanced with Shared installation. This, in turn, causes connectivity . �,.. Lane Markings ("sharrows"), signage and traffic issues for pedestrians. While new development calmed streets. requires the installation of sidewalks and,in some cases, paved off-street paths, existing adjacent Multi-use paths exist along some flood control development may not have sidewalks,creating a channels and creeks, but do not connect with disconnected pedestrian environment.Aseparate •, each other. They often, however, connect with sidewalk study(Appendix B)was commissioned on-street facilities such as bicycle lanes. Natu- as part of this plan that identifies these gaps, ral surface trails exist along some flood control ranks them and provides cost estimates. This channels,adjacent to some streets or conditioned Sidewalk Study will allow the City to focus on with development.They too connect to on-street installing sidewalks where they are needed the bicycle facilities and only along Diaz Road does most and allocate funds to complete the network. a natural surface trail connect to a paved multi- use path. Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail This plan's gap closure alternatives (CCAs)aim to close those gaps and to provide a comprehen- sive on-street and off-street bicycle facility and multi-use trail network. All µ ` � r 19 Chapter 2:Analysis Figure 3— Existing Traits and Bikeways is av�rwc, - — airena�lr� '� f . Ma �% q 114. oY4yRA 4 7 ILL _ f Sriarvd USSR Paths(Class 1) Parks Existing Paved Hard Surface Trail(T 6 miles) Schools Bike Lanes(Class Iq Commercial Center Existing(55.8 miles) Open Space Bike Routes(Class IN) Vineyards/Agricultural Existing(2 9 miles) City Boundary Eldstln 9 Off-Street Fac IIIttes Existing Urban Trail(10.2 miles) Existing Natural Surface Trails(19.2 miles) 20 fl'TUM City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Masker Flan Update HIKESIKETEMECU".ORG Trail and Bikeways Users and Abilities This plan's survey responses correspond with and Fearless"representing just one percent,and numerous recent polls that show people would "Enthused and Confident" representing about choose to bicycle for transportation more often seven percent,are likely to ride whether encour- it they simply felt safer while riding. Attention is aged to or not.At the other end of the spectrum, therefore being shifted away from trying to create the 33 percent of the population that identifies 46=d "cyclists"or providing facilities for relatively expe- as"No Way No How"may be unlikely to change rienced cyclists, and toward making it easier for their minds, but could be tempted to try biking 4 any person to choose cycling for their everyday with enough encouragement. trips. Bicycle planning recommendations now often try to help reposition cycling as a safe and Even though all segments of the population common mode of transportation and increase the may be encouraged to ride, it is through the en- number of people riding. couragement of the largest"Interested but Con- cerned"segment that the greatest gains i n mode Based by on this shift and on their experience share will be made. In fact, the bicycle planning creating one of America's most comprehensive field is being redefined toward this end. bicycle networks, the City of 'Portland, Oregon developed a typical cyclist typology as shown in At the October 2013 public workshop at the Old Figure 4 describing Portland's cyclist types and Town Temecula Community Theater,Figure 4was their perceived abilities. This categorization has used to gauge how participants viewed themselves in relation to Portland's cyclist types.They skewed strongly influenced bikeway planning because re- search continues to show that it correctly reveals toward the more confident range of the spectrum a strong latent interest in cycling among the 60 than the national average,but this is likely because percent of the population who identify themselves bicycle planning workshops tend to attract partici- as "Interested but Concerned."While these indi- pants who are probably more experienced riders, viduals do not identify themselves as "cyclists," ride more regularly and are therefore more comfort- the point is that they do not necessarily need to able with existing bicycle facilities than those who do so to benefit from facilities and programs to en- typically fall into the other categories. courage cycling.The top two categories, "Strong "Nike/Bike"event along Murietta Creek-May 2015 i r� 21 Chapter 2:Analysis Figure 4 - Cyclist Types THE FOUR TYPES OF CYCLISTS „ 'Which best describes you? Wye C—tr( Put you►dots and comments here! Strong and Fearless Riding is a strong part of my identity and I am ti generally undeterred �. by traffic speeds and �r roadway conditions. Enthused and Confident I ha cnmhe table road sharing the with motor vehicles,but given a choice,I prefer 15 to use bike lanes and boulevards. Interested but Concerned I like riding a bike,but I don't ride much.i would like to feel safer when I do tide,with less traffic and slower speeds. No Way No How 33% i don't bike at all due to inability,fear for may safety,or simply a complete and utter ,# lack of interest. *-Commonly used planning descriptions of cyclists (Developed by Roger Geller,Bicycle Coordinator-Portland Office of Transportation) •�4 22 OBNCity of Temecula,California■Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKEUMECULAARG Trip Origin and Destination Analysis Trip Origins Trip Destinations In the context of a trails and bikeway master pian Non-motorized trip destinations are generally analysis,"trip origins"are defined as those areas referred to as a community's "activity" centers. or specific locations from which the majority of The term "activity" specifically refers to a usage non-motorized multi-use facility usage is likely to generated as a result of the particular trip desti- come. Determining where these trip origins are nation. State statutes governing bicycle master now or will be in the future is important in guiding planning mandate the analysis of a specific set the design and implementation of a cost-effective of community activity centers, including schools, trails and bikeways system that will maintain its parks, open .spaces, athletic facilities, libraries, ,. usefulness over time. This includes evaluating community centers,retail complexes and employ- predicted Manges in land use, population density ment centers.Activity center types and locations and housing data, but defining trip origins for a within a community reflect the amount and types particular city is usually not so straightforward. of non motorized usage that can be expected to Extracting useful information from some of the generate(See Figures 6 and 7).This is especially sources described in the following sections true in terms of their proximity to residential areas. sometimes requires evaluating data from other Also, since this is not only a bicycle master pian, sources and synthesizing the results.Other infor- others specific destinations were evaluated in ad- mation sources were reviewed based on widely dition to those required by State mandates.Other employed mobility master planning principles.For potential local trail destinations include: instance, residential areas are, in general, trip • Schools origin points.in all cases,the primary information . Parks sought was how and where changes are pro- jected to occur in Temecula in the near Future.The • Old Town Temecula papulation density reap (Figure 5) shows where • City Hall the higher origin densities are,which are located • Libraries primarily in the central and eastern portions of • Park and Ride Lots the City where significant single and multi-family . Temecula Valley Museum residential housing has most recently developed. . Regional Sports Parks - Promenade Temecula ` • Temecula Canyon Regional destinations(outside City limits)include: • Wine Country • Warm Springs Park and Reserve • Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve • Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve • Lake Elsinore • Vail Ranch • Vail Lake • Lake Skinner • East Side Reservoir • Pechanga Resort and Casino • Old Highway 395 • Diamond Valley Lake 23 Chapter Z,Analysis Figure 5- Population Density w+nCh stop � i� r OVEFIN Min RartNra Caklamia I2� < a ` J •'+ � �„ _ C. H IaS Population Density(People per Acre) M Schools 0-2 Parks 2.5 Oben Space M 5-10 VineyardslAgncuitural m 5 10 M1-7 Uty Boundary 24 91 a 0993 City of Temecula, California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Alan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULA,ORG Figure 6- Employment Density W - - AMNON VA VA I djP01W� 4 a� d Employment Density(People per Acre) III Schools G-2% Parks ■n 2-5% Commercial Center 5-100A Open Space n 10% VneyardslAgricultural E-3 City Boundary 25 Chapter 2:Analysis Figure 7—Activity Centers ti rwclw.rarRn�- ■ PL1Qarrcr,o vr,�,as lir=' VWJ VrRey Rd �cPM� yqW pwfi Wi). Door Hollow Wy Children's Museum i Promenade Temecula Public Facikhes Schools iOld Town Tower Plaza Parks Commercial Center Pechanga Casino Town Center Open Spasm VineyardslAgricu ltura l [� City Boundary .r' 26 City of Temecula,California•Muni-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update H I KE Bl KETEMECU LA.O RG Cyclist and Pedestrian Collision Analysis Bicycle and pedestrian collision data were derived The timing of bicycle collisions also coincided with from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records weekday use, since the lowest numbers of colli- System (SWITRS) data sets of reported bicycle/ sions occurred on Saturdays and Sundays. This vehicle, pedestrian/vehicle and bicycle/pedes- is significant because many areas have higher trian collisions in Temecula from January 2010 weekend use due primarily to recreational riding through December 2014. Note that Collisions at the same time that weekend vehicle traffic on off-street paths are not included in the data volumes are generally lighter, and, unlike vehicle crashes, they lower bicycle crash volumes and lack of robust, long-term There was also a very high incidence of colli- exposure data (such as the number of cyclists sions during daylight rather than at night. This using each corridor) means that this dataset is may indicate that they occurred as a result of not as statistically sound as vehicle data. Also, weekday commuter riding. Though the data do it is generally assumed that collisions involving not contain tfae information, it may be that many cyclists, whether they involve vehicles, other of these weekday collisions were children riding cyclists, or pedestrians, are under-reported, so to aria from schools. bicycle collisions are likely to have occurred that These preceding collision types were the result of were not included in the data. Some estimates user behavior.Decreasing their occurrence would are as high as two unreported inciden,s for each most likely be addressed through increased cy- one reported. clist and driver education and enforcement,rather Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 8 and 9 summarize the than physical design solutions. data collected to help reveal trends and high colli- However, collisions can also be analyzed and sion frequency roadway segments and locations. mapped in terms of the numbers that occurred at These tables and mapping were analyzed to help certain locations.The data detail is limited to spe- identify other trends that may help to determine cific intersectians and on-road segments.but there what and where physical treatments or other in- is enough information to draw some conclusions terventions can be recommended, concerning locations within the roadway network. Bicycle Collisions Bicycle collisions appear to be strongly tied to There were 74 reported bicycle/vehicle-related intersections (See Figure 8).The data contained collisions in the 14 year period.Of these reported locations For 57 of the reported bicycle collisions, collisions, one was fatal. of which most occurred on just three multi-lane arterials-Margarita Road(13),Winchester Road The official cause of bicycle collisions is almost (11) and Rancho California Road (7). Together always attributed to either the cyclist or another they accounted for 31 of 54 reported collisions, roadway user's behavior. For example,by far the or 57 percent. These roadways were all noted highest number of incidents under the"Collision in survey comments as popular but problematic by Vehicle Code Violation"category was"Riding cycling routes due to high vehicle speeds and on the Wrong Side of the Road," 32 of the total volumes.The two most notable"hot spots"are the 74 collisions, or 43 percent. This correlates with intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita what is often the most common cause of bicycle Road, and on Winchester immediately west of collisions and the one that results in the most se- Interstate 15. vere injuries.This is because vehicle drivers have no reason to expect someone coming from the Most of the remainder of the data's roadways "wrong" direction, and often at higher combined were smaller and carry less vehicular traffic approach speeds. than the first three, and were the site of five or less collisions each. Old Town Front Street had The next highest collision type under this cat- two collisions, but vehicle speeds there are low egory was "Violating Automobile Right-of-Way," enough that it is likely the collisions did not result though it was only a third as common as wrong- in severe injury. way riding This collision type is also problematic because it is likely that the cyclists involved suf- fered significant injuries.All 74 bicycle collisions resulted in at least"Complaint of Pain"and over half were 'Other Visible Injury." 27 Chapter 2:Analysis Figure 8- Bicycle Collisions Rd WoWVMM@Yltd lUekr. Mr11 9 J Bq�Ph Bicycle CallisFons Schools High Frequency Paas Low Fequency Commercial Canter Open Space Y V ney ardstAg ricu It u rat 'b. CI City Boundary >~.. 28 "Big City of Temecula,California•Mufti-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update FAKEBIKETEMECUU.ORG Table 2 - Bicycle Collision Summary Collision by Severity Fatal 1 Injury-Complaint of Pain 34 Other Visible Injury 36 Severe Injury 3 f i Under the Influence 3 2010 14 Improper Passing 1 2011 16 Improper Turning 7 2012 12 Other Hazardous Violation 5 2013 13 Cather Improper Driving 2 2014 19 Riding on the Wrong Side of Road 32 - - Traffic Signals and Signs 3 Unknown 6 Violating Automobile Right of Way 11 - Violating Pedestrian Right of Way 4 -Day of the Week • , Sunday 9 Dark-Street Lights 7 Monday 10 Daylight 64 qr Tuesday 14 Dusk-Dawn 2 Wednesday 11 Not Stated 1 Thursday 11 Friday 13 E. ., Saturday Margarita Rd 13 Winchester Rd 11 Rancho California Rd 7 Vail Ranch Pkwy 5 -g Jefferson Av 4 Meadows Pkwy 3 Nicolas Rd 3 Redhawk Pkwy 3 Old Town Front St 2 rtl�l Overland Dr 2 Rustic Glen Dr 2 Ynez Rd 2 Data Source: CA Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS) 29 Chapter 2:Analysis Another roadway with two collisions was Rustic The hot spot at the intersection of Rancho Cali- &am.' Glen ❑rive.This is a relatively low volume road- fornia Road and Moraga Road(noted previously) way that terminates at Winchester Road to the may be addressed by GCA 6, which would pro- east and as Harveston School Road at Ysabel vide an off-street alternative pathway directly ac- Barnett Elementary School to the west. This cessing the school and Moraga Community Park corresponds with the approach to the school's along an adjacent flood control channel. entrance where most children are probably dropped off by a parent. It is possible the colli- Class II dike lanes proposed #o fill the gap on signs involved students, and potentially school Margarita Road between Rancho Vista Road and Santiago Road, as well as GCAs 8b and 9, drop-off traffic.Two very similar hot spots occur at the intersection of Camino Piedra Rojo and Red- may address the hot spot at Rancho Vista Road hawk Parkway, near Vail Ranch Middle School, and Margarita Road adjacent to Temecula Valley and another at the intersection of Rancho Cali- High School. fornia Road and Moraga Road, near Temecula One hot spot at the Intersection of Meadows Elementary School. Parkway at Empezar Street is not directly ad- Collision analysis drove the development of both dressed by any of the GCAs. Bike lanes exist on infrastructure and programmatic recommends- Meadows Parkway, which slopes southbound tions,as well as specific GCA development.In the with two travel lanes in each direction with a left following chapter, infrastructure improvements turn lane at Empezar, near the apex of a broad are recommended at high collision intersections curve.The intersection is uncontrolled except for and roadway segments wherever possible. In a stop sign on Empezar and the speed limit on other cases, recommended improvements to Meadows is 40 mph. Without more detailed col- the citywide bicycle network will provide cyclists lision information, it is difficult to determine why with alternatives to problematic intersections or collisions are happening here, as well as who is roadway segments. involved and when, but it may be advisable to �•+ consider warning signage for approaching drivers For examples, buffered bike lanes are recom- to watch for cyclists, especially in the downhill mended on Margarita Road as part of the City's (southbound direction), regular roadway resurfacing program that should address its high collision numbers.Similarly,GCA 1 would provide an off-road extension of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail as a convenient al- ternative to riding on Winchester Road,especially to cross Interstate 15 (See CCAs in Chapter 5). Paved shoulder along Ynez Read Other smaller hot spots, such as at the intersec- tions of Margarita Road and Via Seron/Overland Trail and at Camino Piedra Rojo and Redhawk Parkway(noted previously)should be addressed by GCA 15, which would implement a paved pathway along the south side of nearby Temecula Creek as an alternative to riding on the streets. i 30 City of Temecula,California•Multi use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update H I K E B I KETEM E CULA.O RG Pedestrian Collisions The pedestrian collision data differs from the Elementary. Many of these pedestrian collision bicycle collisions in significant ways, Of the 59 hot spots are on low speed, low volume residen- reported pedestrian-related collisions, five were tial streets near these schools, making it likely fatal, a relatively high figure for the period. The that they involve children making their way to two most common collision types under the ve- and from school.These pedestrian collisions, like hicle code violations, by far, were "Fedestrian many of the bicycle collisions, may be addressed Violations" (23) and "Violating Pedestrian Right- with enforcement targeted at these hot spots, as of-Way"(24).These two collision types accounted well as student and driver education. for 47 of the 59 reported collisions, or fully 80 percent of pedestrian collisions. While it can be Some of these locations may be addressed assumed that the"Pedestrian Violations"were the by some of the same CCAs noted under the fault of the walkers and the"Violating Pedestrian bicycte collision section, such as GCA 1, which Right-of-Way"collisions were the fault of the driv- is close enough to Winchester Road to make it ers, the few remaining collisions were likely due an easy choice over walking along Winchester to driver fault, such as "Improper Turning" and itself. Another example is GCAs Sb and 9 that "Unsafe Speed." may address the hot spot at Rancho Vista Road and Margarita Road adjacent to Temecula Valley Collision pattern by day of the week was similar to High School. that of bicycle collisions, with less on weekends, but not as definite a distinction between week- The hot spot on Jefferson Avenue is likely to days and weekends. Also, the peak days were be addressed by implementation of the Uptown Monday and Tuesday. butjust slightly higher thanJefferson Specific Plan that will include new side- the other weekdays. walks, as wei as CCAs 1 and 5c,which together will provide attractive off-street paths paralleling More than half of pedestrian collisions occurred Jefferson. The hot spot centered on Old Town daylight hours,but 18 or the 59 reported collisions Front Street will also benefit from nearby parallel occurred at night, with 13 of those occurring on creekside paths, particularly GCA 5a. 1 it streets. Temecula is well served with sidewalks and Like the bicycle collisions,the pedestrian collision pedestrians generally cover less distance than hot spot pattern is tied to intersections, but the cyclists. These two facts imply that not all the pedestrian hot spots are also more closely linked routes described under the bicycle collisions together than the bicycle collisions (See Figure may address some of these pedestrian hot spots 9). Several of these groupings actually form Ion- because the facilities are too faraway to be practi- gitudinal hot spot corridors, yet are still focused cal walking route alternatives.Also, many of the on intersections. This includes corridors west of pedestrian hot spots,even though fairly corridor- Interstate 15 along Jefferson Avenue,Winchester specific, reveal that most pedestrian collisions nc- Road and Main Street, as well as along Ynez cur at intersections. It is likely that improvements Road, Pauba Road, Rancho California Road to existing pedestrian routes can alleviate some and Rancho Vista Road east of the freeway..The of these problematic locations, especially high pedestrian collision data corresponds with this visibility crosswalks and user-actuated signals analysis, with the highest number of pedestrian (See Toolbox—Design Guidelines—AppendixA), collisions occurring on Rancho California Road, Winchester Road,Ynez Road,Jefferson Avenue Finally,the fact that five fatalities occurred among and Margarita Road. Some pedestrian hot spots the 59 reported pedestrian collisions is tragic. at least partially overlap bicycle locations. One in 12 col isions resulting in the death of a pe- destrian is unacceptable. Without more detailed Even more so than bicycle collisions,a significant information, it is difficult to determine solutions, number of hot spots occur near and even adja- but high vehicle speeds are likely to have been cent to schools, such as Temecula Valley High, an issue since higher speeds directly contribute Chaparral -ligh,Temecula Elementary-,James L. to the level of pedestrian injury and death. The Day Middle, Redhawk Elementary and Paloma physical improvements suggested in the previ- ous paragraph may help, as well as targeted enforcement and education,for both drivers and pedestrians (See Chapter 4 — Programs and Funding Sources). 31 Chapter 2:Analysis Figure 9- Pedestrian Collisions r WNW } - ; Vift Ad 40-1 dr 4to 1, 4 w IregorrWY Pedeslflalt Collisions Schools i w Frequency Parks Low Frequency Commercial Center Open Space Vineyarde ft0coltura l C3 City Boundary 13ME1 City of Temecula,California• Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKEnMECI UORG Table 3 - Pedestrian Collisions Summary 'Collision by Severity Fatal 5 Injury-Complaint of Pain 28 Other Visible Injury 23 Severe Injury 3 FW i • . • ■ • c FT Tel • • ' ' � Improper Turning 2 2010 5 Other Improper Driving 1 2011 13 Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 1 2012 11 Pedestrian Violation 23 2013 14 Traffic Signals and Signs 2 2014 16 Unknown 2 Unsafe Speed 3 Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 Violating Pedestrian Right of Way 24 L . . EM ,Day of the Week r I • 1 Sunday 7 Dark-No Street Lights 5 Monday 12 Dark-Street Lights On 13 Tuesday 11 Dark-Street Lights Out 1 Wednesday 9 Daylight 37 Thursday 6 Dusk-Dawn 3 Friday 9 - -- , Total; Saturday 5 "" Grwd . , Collision Rancho California Rd 8 Winchester Rd 8 Ynea Rd 5 Jefferson Av 4 Margarita Rd 4 Crowne Hill Dr 2 Old Town Front St 2 1-15 2 Wolf Valley Rd 2 Data Source: CA Statewide integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS) 33 Chapter 2:Analysis Problematic Locations for Cyclists, Horses and Pedestrians Crossing at Freeway Interchanges T Many cyclists and pedestrians find crossing major While pedestrians and horses tend to mix well, roadways unnerving due to high vehicle volumes faster moving cyclists can startle horses, which and speeds.This is particularly true when cross- may occur on open space trails where horses ing freeways,where they mustcontend with faster share the trail with cyclists. This is less likely to moving vehicles turning and crossing lanes, at occur where sight distance is adequate. User both on- and off-ramps, and often involving education has been shown to be effective, es- more than one lane. Situations like this occur at pecially where adequate sight distances can Pechanga Parkway, Rancho California Road and not be maintained. While not required on trails Winchester Road where they cross over or under used more as transportation corridors than for Interstate 15.The experience is so daunting that recreation, best practices recommend separating for many people,freeways are barriers to walking cyclists and horses. or bik.ng. Even experienced cyclists find such Trail Crossings at Roadways crossings unpleasant and will avoid them when provided with a readily accessible alternative. Popular trails crossing multi-lane roadways wiii Only Santiago Road provides a freeway crossing require careful consideration,including enhance- away From an interchange. ments such as user-actuated signals at mid-block crossings, or modified signal timing at intersec- Based on survey input and field: review, ad- tions.Curb extensions may be advisable at both dressing these freeway crossings ranked very to effectively shorten crossing distances, as well +� high in priority. GCA 1 is intended to provide an as shorten vehicle wait times. Most of the natural attractive alternative to crossing Interstate 15 on surface trail GCAs prepared for this plan reflect Winchester Road with a path along Santa Ger- these types of enhancement, audis. Creek (See GCAs in Chapter 5). GGA 5d a long-term look ahead to take advantage of Where a trail crosses a roadway, equestrians ny future reconfiguration of this interchange to can be provided with special user-actuated sig- provioe a completely separated freeway cross- nal buttons, designed for equestrians,which are Ing connecting Old Town with the rest of the City set higher than pedestrian buttons. This allows east of the freeway. The future French Valley equestrians to cross the street, though neces- Parkway overcrossing is another opportunity to sarily mixing with pedestrians, cyclists and motor ,provide such a relatively low-stress connection vehicles. The same premise applies to cyclists across Interstate 15, who would use pedestrian signal buttons where a multi-use path crosses a roadway. In this case,. Equestrians on Multi-use Trails cyclists would travel as pedestrians through the While the GCAs prepared for this plan reflect cy- intersection• clists and pedestrians as the primary trail users, It is up to the individual equestrian to determine when viable, adjacent equestrian trails can be ONO along many of these routes. Depending whether or not to dismount and lead the horse on trail type and available width, trails can be across roadways, which may be preferable in terms cf safety. Where equestrian use is ex- built to accommodate all users within a single alignment. While cyclist-pedestrian interaction petted, crosswalk and paved trail crossing sur- is inherent to non-motorized planning, the inter- faces should be made more slip-resistant than action of equestrians poses a unique situation. standard. Equestrians and pedestrians can share natural Where significant equestrian use is expected, surface trails while cyclists and pedestrians can additional special considerations can be made, share paved multi-use paths. These can be built such as adequate queuing space at a reasonable in parallel with separation such as a planted or distance from the roadway edge to give groups .,Jr unplanted median or fencing, though fencing of horses and riders room to wait without undue tends to detract from the open space experience. crowding. This also benefits other users, espe- cially on popular trails where there may be high number of users needing to cross per signal cycle. 34 t OUR ECity of Temecula,California■Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKE9IK91KfTFMEClI AORG Leel of Traffic Stress Analysis Bicycle and pedestrian planning state of practice while local, low-stress streets tend to be residen- has changed significantly since the adoption of tial connectors to schools and parks. For trans- the 2002 Plan. Rather than focusing primarily on portation purposes, arterials can better serve the connectivity and gap closure, planning now em- needs of people who bicycle to work, providing phasizes safety improvements designed to ben- a more direct route, and can often be improved efit all roadway users. This includes addressing with facility enhancements. both objective safety and the perception of safety, Figure 10 illustrates the results of the LTS analy- which has been shown to increase the numbers of sis performed on all City streets to ensure that people choosing to walk and bike which, in turn, recommendations, and GCAs in particular, of- have been shown to further increase safety.Look- ing at network and facility design through the lens fered the least stressful cycling experience pos- of perceived safety has therefore fundamentally Bible. CCAs on corridors that were determined changed the way bicycle and pedestrian planners to be high LTS were"upgraded" or re-evaluated. conduct analysis and make recommendations. Bicycle Boulevard or Low-Stress Net- Roadway data related to street classification, work Connectivity Analysis number of lanes, traffic volumes and posted A bicycle boulevard is a bicycle priority route,gen- speeds have come to define objective and per- erally located on calm residential streets, parallel ceived safety and are heavily relied upon for to busier arterials and collectors, They are used analysis and recommendations. This section by cyclists seeking low-stress travel corridors to offers a brief explanation of three different forms access destinations.Candidate bicycle boulevard of analysis, employed in this project, that reflect streets may vary in the amount of traffic calming the new state of practice: (1) the Level of Traffic measures needed to reduce vehicle speeds and Stress model, (2) the Bicycle Boulevard or Low- volumes, but are alike in requiring wayfinding Stress Network Connectivity model and (3) the treatments. Safe Routes to School methodology. In communities with conventional street grids, Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a fairly recently strong bicycle boulevard candidates are often developed GIS analysis method that addresses easy to identify. In fact, public input often reveals the perceived safety related to traffic speed, that resident al streets parallel to busier streets volumes, number of lanes and existing bikeway are already used as de facto bicycle boulevards facility type. In addition to serving as a proxy for by cyclists to travel along a corridor anc access safety, the existing bikeway factor is a measure destinations. In communities with more subur- of existing network supply. ban street grids such as those characterized by superblocks and cul-de-sacs, bicycle boulevard Stress increases with traffic speed and volume, candidates are much more difficult to identify. number of lanes and lack of existing bikeways. Cul-de-sacs seldom offer bicycle and pcdestrian LTS scores can range from 1 (lowest stress)to 4 connections and, even when they do, often me- (highest stress). Table 4 from the Mineta Trans- ander to the point of inconvenience. Still, nearly portation Institute's Low-Stress Bicycling and all communities,including Temecula, have some Network Connectivity Report describes the four bicycle boulevard potential. stress level categories and defines what stress levels will result when bicycle lanes or routes are For this plan, knowledge of bicycle boulevard applied to specific roadway configurations and design was paired with GIS network analysis speed limits. The model was created using City to improve efficiency and maximize identifying data, including speed limits, number of lanes and bicycle boulevard candidates based on specific the presence or absence of bicycle facilities, inputs and parameters.The primary input was the existing street network, which was augmented High stress and low stress routes are generally with both ex sting and potential Class I facilities prioritized for treatment, and streets with either and small sidewalk connections, additions that low stress (LTS 1) or high stress (LTS 4) were can help close gaps and effectively increase given an equal scoring value. The reasoning the amount of bicycle boulevard candidates, behind this is that both are ideal for increasing parameters included designated "focal" streets ridership based on positive existing conditions and that they experience vehicle volume and (LTS 1), or improvements can be made to high speed appropriate for bicycle boulevards (less stress streets (LTS 4). In the case of high stress than 4,000 vehicle trips per day and less than streets, rrany arterials are direct travel routes 25 mph, respectively). Parks and schools were 35 Chapter 2:Analysis Table 4 - Leve! of Traffic Stress ' Stress Category Stress Indicator Suitable for all bicyclists, including LTS 1 children trained to safely cross inter- sections. Suitable for most adult bicyclists, but LTS 2 demanding more attention than may be expected from children. Acceptable to most adults currently LTS 3 cycling in American cities, but not gener- ally desirable. LTS 4 Level of stress beyond LTS 3. Shared Facilities (Bicycle Routes) Numbe - Number of Lanes Speed Limit 2 3 (2+1) 4-5 (4+1) 6+ .�y. 25 mph 1 2 3 4 30 mph 2 3 4 4 X35 mph 4 4 4 4 Bicycle Lanes (On Streets with Vehicle Parking) Number of Lanes Speed Limit 2 3+ 25 mph 1 1 : 30 mph 1 1 X35 mph 2 2 340 3 3 withoutBicycle Lanes (On Streets Parking) Number of Lanes Speed Limit 2 3 4+ Buffered 25 mph 1 1 I 1 1 30 mph 1 2 j 1 1 r 35 mph 2 3 2 2 X40 mph 3 3 3 2 36 DunCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIHESI KETE MECIRA.ORtGG Figure 10 - Level of Traffic Stress Star Rd - —- - v f , Ran GMI Y ieetisOj'+S' �_ Rd II *61 S ,R_anShpp ,h l� � `� i1 PI L�► � � � K Level of Traffic Stress Schools LTS 1 Perks LTS 2 Commercial Center LTS 3 Open Space LTS 4 Vineyards/Agricultural [---I City Boundary 37 Chapter 2:Analysis Safe Routes to School Using LTS Analysis identified as desirable destinations, between Safe Routes to School (SRTS) included Level of which the network algorithm attempted to find Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis of the entire City's routes potentially suitable for bicycle boulevards. street network, particularly addressing streets Dn-street portions were evaluated based on their around schools in terms of number of lanes, traffic stress(LTS)level.The result was a network speed limits, street widths, presence or absence "4 of candidate routes for further analysis. of sidewalks, etc. This was especially true for the proposed GCAs. intended to serve schools. Knowledge of best practices was then used to Lowering traffic stress level for GCAs generally eliminate disjointed segments,such as segments addressed"upgrading"facilities;where feasible,to that fit the required parameters, but were too facilities'hat provided more separation from traffic. isolated to serve any real purpose. Conversely, professional judgment was used to more closely More direct SRTS analysis was also conducted, evaluate segments that appeared to be strong A quarter-mile buffer was created around each candidates, but which had been excluded by school and the streets within this buffer were the GIS analysis algorithm. Ccmmon reasons analyzed for LTS.As shown in Figure 12,the vast included vehicular speeds or volumes that slightly majority (86 percent) of streets within a quarter- exceeded those recommended for bicycle bou- mile of schools were classified as low-stress levards. Some candidate routes would require (LTS 1). These low-stress streets were followed more intervention than others to become true in prevalence by the highest stress streets (LTS bicycle boulevards. 4 = 12 percent). Streets of LTS 2 and 3 were un- common(less than 1 and 6 percent, respectively). -ONE" Lastly, an additional"out-of-direction"travel anal- ysis was performed of the candidate routes and Given the suburban nature of the street network, the ertire street network, irrespective of speeds Temecula essentially has two types of streets and traffic volumes. Routes that increased travel from an LTS perspective - low-stress and high- distances more than 25 percent were rejected. stress -with little in between. That 80 percent of streets within a quarter mile of schools are low- UItimate ly, this methodoIogyyielded a number of stress (LTS 1) makes intuitive sense based on candidate routes,but none were deemed suitable visual analysis. Most of Temecula's schools are for bicycle boulevard designation, even though within neighborhoods and surrounded by local the network algorithm included existing off-street streets with low speeds and volumes because paths,such as the Santa Gertrudls Creek Trail. In they often provide no through routes. The 12 most cases, due to street network configuration, percent of high-stress (LTS 4) streets within a candidate routes were not cont guous enough quarter mile of schools are major collectors or to justify bicycle boulevard investments (See arterials with relatively high posted speeds and Figures 11 a-c), traffic volumes, and provide good vehicle access This is not uncommon for cities with predomi- throughout the City and region, but are therefore nantly suburban roadway configurations like not attractive walking or cycling routes. Temecula's since most successful bicycle boule- What is less clear from the numbers and visual vards have been on grid networks where bicycle analysis is that several of Temecula`s schools can boulevards often provide low-stress alternatives only be accessed from high-stress routes.Traffic to rid ng on parallel high volume, high speed stress is directly related to vehicle volumes and arterials. Even so, many of these candidate low- speeds, as well as number of travel lanes, and stress routes coincide or connect with existing as noted in the collision analysis, a number of and proposed Class 11 bike lanes, so they may schools fall within or near bicycle or pedestrian be of value in future planning since they provide coilisior.°hat spots"that coincide with nearby in- connectivity between neighborhoods and the tersections of higher LTS streets. These include City's on-street bicycle network. (GCAs 3, 5a, 8b Ysabel Barnett Elementary,Temecula Elementa- and 15 all address portions of these low-stress ry, Redhawk Elementary, Paloma Elementary Vail routes. See Chapter 5.) Ranch Middle, James L. Day Middle, Temecula Valley High and Chaparral High. aw 38 M City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update IA HIKEBlliETfMECUMORG Figure 79 — Law-Stress Routes go (See following pages for blow-up maps.) u ------trt� FIgUCB 118 ----- r I I ter,rd--Af I I a a I J` %echo Carr I I r *01 I Wr0— ... I I ,�noK�sd9L t-7+ I I I + _ _ � =1 I Figure 11b I ,c value V#tx. R1W I .._..J l 1 nem" wy . Figure 11c I I PotenbW Law Stress Rouresr Schools Nigh iofs shortest mutes Parks I am Low Stress Routes between parks and Commercial Center schoats on roads L—— ———--_ with speeds¢25 mph. Open Space Viney arc!W"ricultural City Boundary 39 Chapter Z;Analysis Figure 77a—Law$tress Routes (North) p wir►cnasre�..���•' y h� aRasp � c �n 4 Bran�ota p wY H� D M � Q a /� �r►c�CallPa�✓a 4 h Potential Law stress Routes_ Schools Higldights shortest routes Parks bet men parks end Commercial Cenler Law Stress Routes sclt:aels on rads A with speads<25 mph. Oren Space VirteyardsiAgriculturel Rd [ City Boundary r.1Ta1� Cit} of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master plan Update HIKEBIKEnMECULA.ORG Figure 11b - Low-Stress Routes (Central) (a Bra°`O`�pc 5erna wY a Cecilia pr a Ar E �D 0 us cafvo n11a lid ar m+b m via Bonilla L® a -�.... erg b "?. a ao a ca 4 1p } Potentia)Low Stress Routes-, Schools Highlights shortest routes Parks between parks and Commercial Center Low Stress Ratites schWs on roads with speeds a 25 mph. Open Spare U ney and s;Ag ri c ultu rel I-_i City Boundary 41 Chapter 2:Analysis Figure 77c— Law-Stress Routes (South) m v r� q CL O Loma Linda ��arry 'Ta { ra p Via Gordo6 m r��yl d rn x as �.� °if ValleyRa I �no�'PkrD n r 4alanc/h Johnston dr 0 i n Qm \4 Potential Low Stress Routes, Schools Hrghlrghts shortest routes Perks between parks and Commercial Center Low Stress Routes schools on roads with speeds-e 25 mph. Open Space VineyardslAgricu{tural C=�I City Boundary 42 iJ 04;� x P - sl City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HINEBIKETEMECULA.ORG Figure 12— SRTS Traffic Stress z Wrnchcale=R<l 1 �6 1 , � 1 R�nchn Call£aanln rtrj Ccs�k Ary � — _ — o}b s � `Rakich oYr�y'Ra� _ ¢4 lo4,/ a „ P�A VMJFW"hP')..: f Level of Traffic Stress SOO* LTS i Parks LTS 2 Gommercial Center LTS 3 Open Space LTS4 Vineyards+Agricultural Y__I City Boundary 43 Chapter 2:Analysis Health Benefits Some of these locations may be addressed by Transportation accounts for nearly 30 percent of some of the route improvements in GCAs noted all US greenhouse gas emissions,with cars and under the collision analysis section,such as GCA trucks creating nearly 20 percent of those emis- 6 near Temecula Elementary School, and GCAs sions. While a solo driver in an average North 8b and 9 near Temecula Valley High School(See American vehicle releases about 1.2 pounds of GCAs in Chapter 5). However, this master plan CO. per mile, the average cyclist releases only identifies the further exploration of access points 0.7 grams through respiration. to and from schools as a next step in providing safer routes to schools. Best practices in Safe A significant percentage of Americans are over- Routes to School planning suggest that future weight or obese and recent projections indicate schools should be sited within neighborhoods that 42 percent of the population will be obese they serve, rather than along major collector or by 2030. To combat this trend and prevent a va- arterial streets,such as Abby Reinke Elementary riety of diseases,the Center for disease Control School, for example. Existing schools oriented (CDC) suggests a minimum of 30 minutes of towards busy streets may be able to provide im- moderate intensity physical activity five days per proved and more direct neighborhood connection week, such as cycling and walking. through rear access, such as through gates or Facilities that support outdoor activities encour- other fence openings, so students can enter the age cycling and walking,which are great ways to school grounds without having to do so from the help lose weight since they burn fat, which helps busy fronting street. individuals feel and function better. Exercise im- Such changes to school access will require coop- proves heart and lung fitness,as well as strength eration between the City and school district/p1- and stamina.Regular exercise reduces the risk of vate schools. Providing low-stress routes, along high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes. with complementary education, encouragement In addition to heart disease,regular exercise can and enforcement programs, will likely lead to a also help to prevent other health problems such - higher percentage of children walking and riding as non-insulin dependent diabetes,osteoarthritis to schools.This, in turn,will likely lead to reduced and osteoporosis. Exercise also relieves symp- demand for vehicle circulation and parking on toms of depression,improves mental health,and the busy streets. Recent studies show that as decreases anxiety and stress levels.Cycling and much as 25 percent of morning vehicular traffic walking on a regular basis can be enjoyable ways is parents driving their children to school. Both to exercise and take advantage of their stress- trends may ultimately lead to support For placing reducing capabilities. school entrances away from busy streets in the A large body of research shows that providing first place. bicycling and walking friendly facilities encour- ages more people to ride and walk and that this availability directly improves overall community health. From the Active Living Research website: "The way communities are designed has a great influence on how active we are. When communi'ti'es are safe, well-maintained and have appealing scenery, children and families are more likely to be active. Unfortunately, many people—especially these athigh risk for obesity—live in communities that lack parks and have high crime rates, dangerous traffic patterns and unsafe sidewalks. Such com- munities discourage residents from walking, bicycling and playing outside. Increasingly, local govemments are considering now com- munity design will impact residents'physical activity. Our research documents effective strategies for creating communities that sup- port active living and promote health." 44 BullCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Pian Update HIKEBIKETEMECUADRG Active Lifestyles Planning for active transportation provides appor- According to the Mayo Clinic website: tunities for people to get outside and walk, bike, 11 jog, skate, rollerblade or partake in other phys- Virtually any form of exercise or movement cal activities. These aerobic activities all burn carr increase yourfitness level while decreas- calories, enabling people to maintain a healthy ing your stress. The most important thing is weight and improve mental health. For example; to pick an activity that you enjoy." a 180 pound adult, walking at 3.5 miles per hour Having attractive bikeways,trails and pedestrian for one hour burns 314 calories, and running at facilities can entice more people to get outside 8 miles per hour for one hour burns 861 calories. and become more active, relieving their stress Similarly, a 130 pound person bicycling at 14-16 and improving their health, miles per hour for one hour burns about 590 calo- ries.Since each pound of body weight represents Social Interaction roughly 3,500 calories, burning 500 calories per Walking,cycling,skating, roilerblading and other ! day translates into a pound lost per week. non-motorized transportation modes put people Children who walk or bicycle to school are gen- in the streets, in situations that offer much more erally healthier than their peers who are driven. opportunity for social interaction compared to Because of this, they also miss fewer days of driving.This can make communities more vibrant school,are more alert in class and perform better and can help to develop stronger social capital, academically. Similarly, healthy employees miss Research shows that people living on streets fewer days of work, focus better and perform with light traffic have roughly three times as many better at work than those that are less healthy. friends and twice as many acquaintances as those living an streets with heavy traffic. Active According to the President's Council on Fitness, transportation brings about a "people-oriented" regular physical activity: feel to streets and seeing people out makes it • Reduces heart disease,cancer and stroke risk easier to do the same and to interact with their • Strengthens muscles, bones, and joints neighbors. • Improves heart and lung condition Enjoyment • Decreases depression Trail and bikeway networks give people conve- • Increases energy and self esteem nient access to enjoy outdoor recreation. They • Lengthens life expectancy are able to go out to enjoy the network on their • Relieves stress own, and may find that the trails also o`fer a vi- able setting to spend gime together with family. By contrast, people who live sedentary lifestyles Trail activities can be enjoyed by people of nearly have a greater risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, all ages, and research consistently shows that high blood pressure, high cholesterol, stroke, residents greatly value trails and bikeways in heart disease and cancer. their communities. Locally, this was most suc- By creating safe, convenient options for people to cinctly expressed under Temecula's Quality of walk, bicycle and use other forms of active trans- Life Master Plan 2030 (QLMP) goals: portation, people can integrate physical activity "At the QLMP community meetings, resi- into their daily lives without having to set aside a dents expressed their desire to travel safely special time of the day for exercise. throughout the City on various modes of Stress Relief travel, including hike and pedestrian trails arra on complete streets." Many medical conditions, illnesses and mental problems are now known to be either caused by The QLMP also lists trails as a component of or intensified by stress. These range from heart several goals, such as part of Murrieta Creek attacks and cancer to depression, insomnia, flood control enhancements, integration of the chronic fatigue,a variety of mental illnesses and City's trails with the Wine Country and the City alcoholism. of Murrieta, and in support of healthy and active lifestyles. Master plan survey responses also indicate that trails are seen as popular recre- ational facilities, since 90 percent of respondents said they would "likely" or "definitely" use "trails along creeks and utility corridors separated from roadways.,' 45 Chapter 2:Analysis Improvements to the Public Realm By making walking and biking true transporta- Bicycle lanes, new sidewalks and new parkways, low tion alternatives, cities may reduce the amount when accommodated through narrowing vehicle of public space dedicated to the movement and travel lanes,also have the potential to reduce the storage of private vehicles and repurpose it for vehicle speeds and improve safety. Speed is a "higher uses,"such as "road diets." In addition to key factor in crash reduction for three reasons. creating more space for walking and biking, road First, drivers' peripheral vision declines with diets can create more public space. Medians, speed. Second, stopping distance increases street furniture,landscaping, public art, historical with speed. For example, the average stopping plaques, wayfinding signs, improved bus stops distance at 40 mph is 170 feet, while it is 60 feet and community gardens exemplify the types of at 25 mph. Third, crash severity significantly in- uses that could become the "higher and better" creases with speed, If struck by a car moving at use of the public space. 20 mph,a pedestrian has a 95 percent chance of survival, but only a 15 percent chance at 40 mph. Safety The more cyclists, pedestrians and joggers there By providing low-stress bikeways, improved pe- are using local streets and trails,the more people destrian crossings, and trails, people will be able will be aware and will look for them.Also,because to cycle,walk,jog and ride in a safer environment. a greater percentage of drivers will also use the streets and trails as cyclists, pedestrians and Bicycling on streets with low vehicular volumes doggers at other times, they will be more aware and speeds, or on a dedicated bikeway on a high of their presence. ...� volume street with higher speeds both provide low-stress bicycling experiences.Shared streets Personal safety benefits can result from having are often inherently comfortable bicycling envi- people out walking, cycling or skating since they ronments, but may be further enhanced with traf- put "eyes on the street."As more people are out fic calming elements. Dedicated bikeways make and casually surveying the street, criminals are cyclists more comfortable by increasing visibility less likely to partake in anti-social activity. More and legitimacy. Bicycle lanes provide a place to people on the streets provide an increased sense ride where drivers generally do not intrude and cy- of safety and may, in turn, encourage more walk- clists feel more comfortable.Going a step further, ing and biking. protected bikeways go a long way in increasing cyclists'safety and comfort, even when traveling alongside fast moving cars. Improved pedestrian-friendly safety features re- duce the number of pedestrians 'iit by drivers of cars. The figures are compelling. For example, adding a sidewalk to a street yields a crash reduc- tion factor of 88 percent. Crossing islands reduce pedestrian-involved crashes by 46 percent atm marked, uncontrolled crossings (where there r. ill� were no signals or stop signs). Kraxe [hive Sarek Rrd LJglk7 d Sp rrJfn�i.an;s TRAFFIC INFORMATION «. Srrfrilp Frrf..rrrd 1610 a r� `1 46 11913 City of Temecula,California•Wti-use Trails and Blkeways Master Plan Update HIKEBII(MMECULADIRG Economic Benefits Cycling and walking are low cost activities that Cost savings for individuals and society also re- can be easily incorporated into an individual's suit from getter health.The annual cost of obesity daily life, such as commuting to work or running has been calculated as $4,879 for women and errands. In mild climates like Temecula's,cycling $2,648 for men, Nationally, obesity-related ail- and walking can occur year round. Residents ments, such as chronic disease, disability and can benefit financially from improved cycling and death are estimated to cost $190.2 billion an- walking infrastructure. nually. By 2018, obesity is estimated to cost the United States$344 billion per year,or 21 percent Cost Savings of national health care spending. This is likely People who walk or bicycle for daily trips to the to cause private insurance rates to rise and to store, work, school; or other destinations can consume significant resources from public health realize substantial costs savings by not using insurance programs such as Medicare a-id state their cars. People who regularly drive pay higher health programs. Fortunately,walking and cycling costs than those who ride or walk. Beyond the up- at moderate speeds are effective and convenient front cost of their vehicle, there is maintenance, means of maintaining healthy weight and general insurance and often parking. According to the fitness, provided safe and comfortable facilities American Automobile Association (AAA), daily are available. driving now costs $9,100 annually. Based on an Finally, a bicycle's life-cycle energy use, includ- example wage of 20 dollars an hour, a vehicle ing manufacturing and maintenance. is just 1.4 owner must work 455 hours each year to pay percent that of a typical combustion engine car. for his or her commute by car. By comparison. a cyclist making the same wage only has to work property Value Increases about 15 hours per year to pay for commuting by Research shows that trails have potential to bicycle,and not at all for walking. Even for a typi- create jobs, expand local businesses and en- s cal suburban family, being able to eliminate the hance property values. In Apex, North Carolina, need for a second or third car can reap significant economic benefits. developers added a $5,000 premium onto home prices adjacent to a regiona[greenway,and those Cycling's health benefits can also have a powerful homes were still the first to sell. economic impact. The City of Portland has con- ducted annual counts of cyclists crossing its Wil- Since its completion in 2012, the $52.5 million Indianapolis Cultural Trail (a cycle track) through lamette River bridges since 1991, creating what Central Indianapolis has generated 11.000 jobs is likely the most robust cyclist count dataset in the United States. Researchers took aGvantage of and $8fi3 million through construction, private this data to conduct a first of its kind benefit-Cost sector investment and increased tourism. The analysis of the city's bicycle infrastructure, exist- Project has also increased adjacent property ing and planned. They determined that Portland values by $45 million and redevelopment along the corridor is continuing. residents could save between $388 and $594 million in 'ndividual health care costs by 2040 These are just two of many documented ex- directly attributable to the city's increased invest- amples of economic development through active ment in bi°te infrastructure and that health care transportation. Such facilities support the tourist cost savings and fuel savings over time amply industry, restaurants and other retail outlets, justified investments in bicycling infrastructure bringing in tax revenue to the city. In addition to st- and promotion, yielding benefit-cost ratios as tracting visitors,local residents may choose to do high as 3.8 to 1.Additionally,accounting for lives more of their shopping and entertainment locally, saved from a reduction in mortality using value of rather than travelling to another city.Also, if they statistical life, as is commonly done for transporta- save money by driving less, they will have more tion planning, further increased the benefits-cost disposable income that could be used locally. ratio. The researchers felt that including other less easily monetizable benefits. such as less spending on vehicles and less time needed for additional exercise, would further bolster the economic case for bicycling investments. 47 Chapter 2;Analysis Economically Viable Futures Reduced Travel Time Smaller cities and towns are having difficulty Many trips are short and could be done on foot keeping and attracting vibrant industries and or bicycle if attractive facilities were available. workforce because many Millennia Is want a more Considering that 48 percent of all trips are three "urban" lifestyle where they can live in compact, miles or less, 21 percent of all trips are less than walkable, bikeable communities. There is also one mile and 60 percent of all trips less than one growing evidence that the "Baby Boomer" gen- mile are driven, there is significant potential to eration shares a similar desire for more compact, convert these trips to walking or biking.Especially walkable communities. If smaller cities expect to in congested areas,door-to-door travel time,es- attract both Millennials and Boomers, planning pecially by bike, can be less than when driving a for denser, walkable and bikeable communities vehicle, especially if the time needed to address appears to be a smart formula. parking is taken into account.In addition,convert- ing vehicle trips to walking and biking can reduce Examples of such development in Temecula in- vehicular travel time for those who chose to travel clude Old Town Temecula and the higher density by vehicle by reducing roadway and destination developments planned around it, such as [lie parking congestion. Jefferson Avenue corridor to the north and Altair to the west. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Neighborhood Electric Vehicles addresses the corridor that was once Highway 395,the primary vehicular route prior to the con- Many people, particularly Baby Boomers, are struction of Interstate 15. Trails along Murrieta interested in simplifying their lives through local Creek factor prominently into future Jefferson "alternative transportation"such as bicycling and Avenue plans and the surrounding area.Altair is Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs), which a proposed new development on the west side of can effectively replace a conventional car with Temecula Creek overlooking Old Town Temecula a device much less financially burdening to own that will have 1,500 dwelling units and significant and maintain.Facilities that support both bicycles pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, including and NEVs are driving developmen't planning in high quality connections with Old Town Temecula. some areas. All three developments reflect the qualities many The California Air Resources Board(GARB)clas- people say they prefer,such as attractive walking sifies N EVs as zero emissions vehicles. Legally, routes and convenient bike facilities. The Main NEVs are "Low-Speed Vehicles" as defined by Street Bridge that will directly connect Altair and CVC Section 385.5: Old Town Temecula was designed with this in (a)A"low-speed vehicle" is a motor vehicle that mind,and Altair's primary pedestrian connection meets all of the following requirements: aligns with the bridge. Biking, in particular, will be an easy way to access all three areas since (1) Has four wheels. they are within readily rideable distances of each other. Plan recommendations and GCAs take ad- (2)Can attain a speed, in one mile,of more than vantage of this spatial relationship with a variety 20 miles per hour and not more than 25 miles per of separated and on-street facilities, such as a hour, on a paved level surface. cycle track on Rancho California Road crossing (3) Has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than Murrieta Creek and paved paths paralleling the 3,000 pounds. channel (See GCAs in Chapter 5), (b) (1) For the purposes of this section, a "low- - — speed vehicle" is not a golf cart, except when operated pursuant to Section 21115 or 21115.1. (2) A "low-speed vehicle" is also known as a "neighborhood electric vehicle." r 48 [FA �f * �.� City or Temecula,California•Multi-use:Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HiiKEEBIKETEMECUL&ORG To satisfy federal safety requirements for manu- rapid deployment of Zero-Emissions Vehicles facturers,NEVs must be equipped with three-point (ZEV) in California. According to Temecula's seat or lap belts, running lights, headlights, brake Quality of Life Master Plan, the City is planning lights,reflectors,rear view mirrors and turn signals. to"implement NEV system throughout Temecula" around 2020. To date, this plan has not been NEVs are energy-efficient and minimally pollut- further developed. ing vehicles. In addition to their low impact on air quality, NEVs have a relatively low impact on State law treats NEVs differently from the ap- public infrastructure due to their small size and proach used for bicycles and other low speed low weight. NEV facility requirements are similar vehicles. NEVs are prohibited from use on AV to that for bicycles,with Class 1, II and III facilities streets with speed limits greater than 35 mph, types, each chosen depending on context. NEV yet bicycles can be used on most streets regard- and bicycle facilities are so alike, in fact, that less of speed limit. In addition, electric scooters they may sometimes be shared, if wide enough can be ridden on streets with speed limits of 25 to accommodate both modes. Minimum desired mph, or on streets with limits of 30 ruph or more lane widths for bicycles and NEVs are five and if marked with bicycle lanes.Scooter users must eight feet,respectively.Similar to bicycle facilities, use the bicycle lanes and follow the same rules projecting demand for NEV facilities is limited as cyclists.On residential streets with their typical by a lack of data (i.e. it is difficult to predict use 25 mph speed limits, NEVs function within the of facilities and networks that do not yet exist). travel lane, and not in the bicycle lanes. Projections are based on data that demonstrate a latent demand for NEV facilities such as de- There is interest in expanding NEV-accessible mographic information, circulation and land use roadway networks to allow larger travel areas data, and projected fuel/auto ownership costs. by removing existing legal barriers imposed on Similar to other mobility modeling, the actual their use by being restricted from higher speed implementation of NEV projects, as well as pre- streets. This is an evolving issue as mobility and post-intercept surveys,can enable planners choice initiatives, especially those that support to make more accurate projections. California's climate change mandates, continue to be debated at the state level. NEVs are becoming a popular alternative to stan- Because state law does not allow NEVs or golf . dard motor vehicles, especially in urban areas and for short trips where the local climate sup- carts within bicycle lanes on streets with speed ports the use of these often open-sided vehicles. limits greater than 35 mph, expanding NEV use The Governor and State legislature of California wouSd require a city to secure special study have prioritized NEV travel as means of reaching status through the legislature. NEVs could then air quality and greenhouse gas reduction targets. operate within these bicycle lanes, but only on California Senate Bill 375 outlines Sustainable designated streets with spaeds greater than 35 Communities Strategies, which support the mph. 'Wider joint-use lanes may be acceptable, expansion of NEV infrastructure, among other as has been done in several California cities. On strategies. In March 2012, Governor Brown is- these designated streets, a city could adopt a sued Executive Order B-16-2012 and the Zero new standard dimension for bicycle/NEV joint-use Emissions Vehicle Action Plan requiring all state lanes, perhaps eight feet wide Including gutter, agencies and entities to make efforts toward the and marked appropriately. BIKE LANE GOLF CART LANE. AliHow. 49 Chapter 2:Analysis Bikeshare Bicycle sharing is an innovative approach to in- Successful bicycle sharing programs have been crease bicycle usage throughout an urban area. implemented worldwide, including in southern Providing a bicycle share program, combined California cities in recent years. Most of these with other transportation systems, allows more systems are highly advanced using key cards, diverse,flexible and cost-effective transportation on-line advanced purchase,GPS and Radio Fre- choice. Such a program can reduce the number quency Identification(RFID)technologies making of overall vehicle trips and travel time between it possible for bicycle sharing to be simple for all residences and transit stops, schools and shop- users.Programs such as B-Cycle can even track ping centers. riders by their associated membership numbers. A bike share program represents yet another Data such as distance,duration,calories burned mobility option that is anticipated to induce de- and carbon offset can be captured and uploaded to personal web pages at Bcycle.com.This data mend for bicycle facilities and reduce demand can also be helpful for those commuting and for auto-oriented facilities. Over roughly the past exercising at the same time. five years, bike share programs have been pop- ping up and expanding in mid-sized-large cities Since bike sharing's inception, providers have across the LIS. Among cities where bike share included governments, quasi-governmental has been implemented, significant benefits in transport agencies, universities, non-profits, ad- terms of health, the economy and mode share vertising companies and for-profits.Five primary have been documented. models exist. Most bike share programs existwithin majorcities Government Madel and universities.This makes sense considering The community operates the bike-sharing service their transportation, land use and demographic like it would any other transit service and,as op- composition. Large cities and universities have erator, has greater control over the program. On constrained vehicle access, compact land use the other hand,it may not have the management dw patterns and populations accustomed to cir- experience of an existing bike sharing program culating without vehicles. Bike share systems operator.Also,the community maintains liability, also tend to thrive in places with robust transit which can be less desirable from the community's systems, like big cities and universities, because perspective. the modes complement each other (i.e. transit helps cover longer distances and bike share helps Transit Agency Model cover the "first/last mile" connections). The City A quasi-governmental organization provides of Temecula currently has neither a bike share the service and the agency's customer is a ju- plan nor infrastructure. Given Temecula's gener- risdiction. Some transit agencies have incorpo- ally low density, subareas like Old Town, Altair, rated bike sharing as an extension of their Other Harveston and the Jefferson Avenue corridor, transport offerings to be a more comprehensive which are or will be characterized by compact, mobility provider. An example is Bay Area Bike inixed-use development and multi-modal trans- Share, managed by the San Francisco Municipal portation options, may be good candidates for a Transportation Agency (SFMTA). bike share program in the near future based on one of the following models. i .r 50 City of Temecula,California-Multi-use Trails and Bikeways MasterPlan Update HIKEMETEME[ULA ARG Non-profit Model The non-profit model is usually created to operate Other system operators specialize in smaller the service or folds bike sharing into its existing cities and college campuses. Further simplifying interests, such as Washington D.C.'s Capital bike share system use and management, Social Bikeshare. While the non-profit operates the Bicycles(Sobi)did away with docking stations and program, it usually receives funding from the ju- kiosks altogether and integrated their functions risdiction forthe service it provides to the public in directly onto their bikes. Sobi's system employs addition to collecting the revenues generated by no infrastructure. Instead,users find and reserve membership and usage fees and sponsorships. a bicycle using a web browser or mobile device �- and users without internet access can make aE'� Advertising Company Mode! reservation directly from the keypad interface ace Companies offer a bike sharing program to a on the bike.The proprietary GPS-enabled bikes jurisdiction, usually in exchange for the right to come equipped with built-in U-locks and users use public space to display revenue-generating can pick up and leave them at any public bike advertisements on billboards, bus shelters and rack. Some systems charge a small additional kiosks, for examples. To date, this model has fee for random parking, but provide free parking been the most popular. Citibike in New York City at"hubs,"signature racks placed where additional is a prime example. bike capacity is desired. Compared to the other systems previously described, Sobi's system is For-profit Model more easily scaled and costs less to manage A private company provides the service with lim- since it requires minimal additional infrastructure. ited or no government involvement.❑ecobike is a The City of Portland, Oregon is initiating a Sobi prime example of this model,a business running system in 2416. the service using an off-the-shelf flexible station The simplest system is weBike's, a software system.While similar to the advertising company provider that has eliminated the need for either - model, this model differs in that there is no on- bike stations or proprietary bikes. The commu- street advertising contract with the locality and the nity provides the bicycles and lacks and weBike for-profit keeps all revenues generated. provides the software that allows members to There is no one ideal model that works best in all check out a bicycle via text message or by using a jurisdictions. Potential factors determining which mobile app,and can then return the bicycle to any model to use include the size of the jurisdiction bike rack in the community. Like Sobi's system, and availability of both bike sharing systems able weBike gives users the convenience of leaving to operate in the locality and local entrepreneurs bicycles anywhere within a specified service area. to nun the program.Jurisdiction size is an impar- For a growing city like Temecula,the flexibility of tant factor because the predominant advertising systems like weBike or Sobi may be advisable, company providing bike sharing service model since they can be easily expanded as demand in- tends to occur mostly in larger cities where the creases.While neither system requires additional potential for advertising views, and therefore infrastructure like docking stations, Sobi does advertising revenue, is the greatest. require the purchase of their proprietary bicycles, It is important to nate that all of the systems but does not require users to have internet access referenced in the previous paragraphs are in to use the system. large cities. However, there are system opera- tors providing bicycle sharing for individual busi- nesses,institutions and even multi-family housing ' complexes.An example is a company operating a system for a General Motors'technology cam- pus, a 710 acre site with 38 buildings housing 21,040 employees.The site's scale and compact arrangement makes bike sharing a viable alterna- tive to employees having to move a vehicle from place to place during the course of their work day, and then having to locate a parking space each time they move. Access to shared bikes allows them to pick up transportation at will and conveniently drop it off. 51 Chapter Z:Analysis Emerging Technologies Wayfinding Because technologies are ever-changing, this Private napping services such as Google and secticn should be considered a snapshot of Bing provide online/smartphone apps that al- what exists at the time of this writing. Informa- low users to select from various transportation tion sharing continues to be faster, easier, more modes, including walking or biking.As the master customizable and convenient. These tools can plan is implemented, it will be important to update help to supplement sharing between residents these and other providers with the latest biking and City staff. and walking routes. Mobile phone applications provide real time geo- A custom map app created for the City of Tem- spatial information about bike share, transit and ecula could also include information about where ride share availability, in many cases enabling to ride and bicycle parking locations. It can pro- users to access these options on demand. Mobile vide details, such as long-term or indoor storage apps, particularly those related to bike share, solutions; as well as provide the ability to report transit and the sharing economy have great po- problems with racks, facilities or even report tential to transform the way people get around. close-calls. In doing so, they have the potential to reduce auto-dependency and support more pedestrian, Condition Reporting bicycle and transit travel.The proliferation of bike With the power of a smartphone,it is now easy to share, increased use of transit and explosion of take a photo, record the time, date and location ride share options like Car2Go, Uber and Lyft and add a text description. Pairing this function- would not be possible without their supportive ality with an app can allow individuals to report mobile apps. Enhancing choices means less car issues such as graffiti, overgrown plantings, dependency,an increasing reality in cities across roadway problems, broken sidewalks, lighting the US. In the City of Temecula, the use of mo- problerns, trash, irrigation leaks, etc. The most bile apps, in conjunction with real transportation widely used such app is City Sourced, which choices, would reinforce those choices and sup- produces apps customized for a number of cities port increased walking and biking.The following across the country. sections describe potential smartphone apps,as well as cutting edge technologies for enforcement Close-call Reporting f and counting. Crash data provides a wealth of information Route Tracking regarding locations with safety concerns, This 9 can help to determine if an education campaign Route tracking can employ a smartphone's global or engineering fix can address crash patterns. positioning system (GPS) capabilities to later However,this is a reactionary measure.A method map on-line where the riding, walking or running for reporting `close-calls" where crashes nearly occurred and see the routes others use.This can happened can help to capture valuable informa- help route planning, as well as track mileage, tion before there is a serious incident.Additionally, calories burned or reductions in vehicle miles this can be a venue to report a crash that results traveled (VMT) and green house gas (GHG) in no damage or injury and therefore would have emissions. This can be a basis for competition otherwise gone unreported. between student groups for prizes or tracked for commuter incentives. Quick Response (QR) Codes This can be done with apps like MapMyRide or A Quick Response (QR) code is an image that functions similar to a barcode, readable Endomondo,or this functionality can be acustom- ized Ci a The benefit of a customized app is by smartphones equipped with an appropriate City pp reader app. The most widely used type consists that the City can use the data for tracking active of black squares arranged in a pattern on a white transportation trips to be used for incentives, background that make up a code containing let- prizes and awards, but also general knowledge tern, characters and numbers. The OR code can about those trips. It can be helpful for learning therefore contain a link to a website or video or popu:ar routes residents use, when and how of- other digital content online. Users encountering ten facilities are utilized and to track changes as a QR code scan it with a smartphone or tablet encouragement programs are implemented and camera enabled with a OR code reader app and facilities are expanded.This can provide excellent the device then loads an encoded Web URL benchmarking data over time, which can also be onto the device's Web browser. Posting a QR particularly useful for future grant applications. code assumes the user will recogn,ze what to do 52 0913 City of Temecula,California a N1uYti-use Trails and bikeways Master pian Update WKE611 MMECUL4.DRG with the OR code and have a smartphone and Three Foot Passing Enforcement QR reader app. Therefore, it is best to reserve The Chattanooga Police Department recently the use of these codes for added information or became the first bicycle enforcement unit to convenience. For example, a OR code posted deploy a handlebar-mounted ultrasound device, on a City map could be encoded to di-ect users SSMART (Bicyclist and Safe Monitoring Applied to the City's active transportation website to find Radar Technology), It can measure the distance mare information about City routes. between passing vehicles and the rider with unprecedented accuracy of down to one inch. 2may" re3 Bicycle enforcement officers generally hand out +* educational pamphlets and explain the three foot passing law to cooperative drivers, but can also Issue tickets. Continuous Multi-modal Measurement Multi-modal measurement is a relatively new service that promises to provide more accurate and cost-effective counting than can typically be provided by humans on the street. The technol- QR Codes can be used to provide additional ogy does this by incorporating video feeds from information for wayfinding, bicycle parking and any web-enabled camera to measure variables transit information,as well as instructional videos, like pedestrian density and sidewalk level of ser- contact information and more, For example, one vice; as well as monitoring roadways usage and bicycle parking manufacturer employs OR code vehicle speeds, including bicycles. The goal is stickers on its racks that links to an instructional to support projects and studies through real-time video on how to properly lock a bicycle. counts on specific streets or urban locations,such as business districts. RFID Tags Radio Frequency Identif cation{RFID}is a widely Raw video is transmitted to a sensor that turns the feed into aggregated and anonymous data, used data collection and marking technology that employs e.ectronic fags for storing data and a The algorithm does this by analyzing the move- ment of pixel aggregations representing specific reader dev,ce to retrieve the data.Tags are made user types,automatically identifying whetherthey up of an RFID chip attached to an antenna and mrepresent a car, bus or pedestrian, for examples. most derive their power from the radio frequency waves coming from the reader. To satisfy privacy concerns, the video is deleted after it has been processed,without having been Like bar codes, RFID tags identify items. How- viewed by a human being.The resulting data are ever; unlike bar codes, which must Le in close then made available for purchase by local gov- proximity and line-of-sight to the scanner for ernments, businesses districts, urban planners reading, RFID tags do not require fine-of-sight and advertisers so that they can achieve a more and can be embedded within objects, such as accurate measurement of activity levels and types bicycle frames. Depending on the type of tag and within a specific zone. application, they can be read at a varying range of distances. A common use of RFID tags is commuter track- ing for incentive programs, but it is also used for bicycle reg stration programs. installing RFID tags on or in bicycle frames allows them to be easily scanned and compared with a "hot list"of stolen bicycles.Tne tags may not deter thieves. but they are connected to the police database,which aids bicycle recovery. A downside to using RFID technology for incen- tive programs and use level surveys compared to smartphor.e apps is that signals must be tracked via readers installed in specific locations,such as along popular routes. 53 Chapter 2;Analysis 7-7 11u Nrw�r,ScA4rn\-��+ wwcA,..o-r 54 OURCity of Temecula,California•Multi-arse Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKE BIXETEMECULA ARG RECOMMENDED TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS 3 Implementation Suggested Bicycle Routes Based on the outreach, research and analysis Based on previous planning efforts and subse- summarized in the previous chapters, this chap- quent public input, four longer, contiguous and ter illustrates the improvements recommended mostly paved routes are recommended to provide to create the desired comprehensive active a framework forthe entire Temecula trail system. transportation network. Recommendations are These"backbone"trails would also serve a visitor WWI, organized by type and whether they are on- and tourist function by accessing important desti- street or separated facilities.As noted previously, nations and should therefore be well supplied with Temecula's trails and bikeways are relatively wayfinding signage(SeeAppendixA for trail way- f disconnected, with isolated segments occurring finding signage). These routes are shown in the 1"t across the City. The recommended facilities are accompanying Figure 16 as the Temecula !Loop intended to Gose these gaps by taking advan- Trail, the Lake Skinner Trail, the Wine Country tage of potential connections between on-street Trail and the South Side Loop Trail. These four and off-street facilities to create a system that backbone trails would form a circumference loop encourages more residents to bike or walk rather with north/south and east/west routes across it, than drive, as illustrated in the following maps, as well as a second smaller loop system south Off-street trails are shown on Figure 13 and on- of the main Icop. street bikeway facilities are shown on Figure 14. All of these facilities are then shown together on Temecula Loop Trail a composite map (Figure 16) to illustrate how Starting in Old Town Temecula, the 17 mile long they combine to form a comprehensive active Temecula Loop Trail will follow Murrieta Creek transportation network. north to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail, then This master plan is a tool to help implement the east to Butterfield Stage Road, then south to Temecula Creek,then west to complete the loop proposals generated during previous planning at Old Town. It will be entirely paved, but will also phases, as well as the gap closure alternatives have some parallel natural surface trail segments. _ - (GCAs) developed for this plan. A major com- Specifically, it will be comprised of 10,1 miles of ponent of this planning phase was refining the Class I multi-use paved path and 6.9 miles of previously recommended routes and facilities into buffered Class II bike lanes,most of which will be GCAs to support future development by providing on Butterfield Stage Road, along with 4.2 miles more detailed site analysis, conceptual routing of natural surface trail paralleling some of the and planning Icvel costs.The resulting CCAs are Class I segments. included in Chapter 6 and are available on the HikeBikeTemecula website. Lake Skinner Trail The six mile long Lake Skinner Trail bisects the City roughly north/south. Its southern third will parallel Margarita Road, and then turn northeast to run between Temecula Valley High School and Linfield Christian School,around the Temeku Golf Course, and then to follows an MWD easement north to Murrieta. Both ends intersect the Tem- ecula Loop Trail.Approximately half of this route will be paved, and the segments within the utility easement will be natural surfaced. 55 Chapter 3:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Figure 13-Existing and Proposed Trails (Natural Surface and Paved Class 1) Pw � - Jr y17 r�,��i�M�111'l O`'°rr''kr i • leek ;� Ran�yfem4ltd WReyes • _ 46 M}iiin 5 ~•! •• G !•` i! ! r Vi 00\ • •!\ r Aar 1 ! r ti h� r •�•,,••M \• % r• t, ro rrrrr__.._i rrr yeley Rd ,N,ptA Will Ra.O Ptv �r'I,I 40, 40 RMIow+Nr � 1f f 6 Proposed Trailheads Shared Use Paths[Class{) Schools 0 Proposed Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail Cunnectlores — Existing Paved Hard Surface Trail(7.6 miles) Pa ks Proposed Natural Su:Kaoe Trails(21 4 miles) 1 1 Proposed Paved Hard Surface Trail{79.2 miles) Commercial Center Existing Natural Surface Trails(19.2 miles) Exlst#ng❑flStreet Fac IFties Open Space Propwsed Horse Route(3 4 rr,iles) o Existing Urban Traii(10.2 miles) VireyardstAgrieuitural 1 Proposed Wide Sidewalk City Boundary JY Mw DulaCity of Temecula,California• Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULA.ORG Figure 14-Existing and Proposed Bike Lanes(®nsUvet Bikeways-Class 11 and 111) Ilk W7nchss`W Rd- — - BialaH k- L -- •�� ♦a!I I Aid�apd r Ci' L 11 t�gMh- ,FsHan■ • • •b 4:' 1� i{•at a .0 ` !r • Rancho caj4W WPey R' P go ♦ ♦ � . ®.qtr rrr .�J - MnlySi.. ' r i r1if Is 4, ,*„ s a 4e sR° ..Ob f Q R� MIp Rur y46a r 410 �p A ■Rabcti o1Vf5rSFRd 1 '� rrart ■ 111 11 y �r r �•• ■° 1 �� at aBtasr�.r • YY w v tear ° ti •�D�+irt p 1 • 4, 1:fie • *4- % ar % r4F go � err'`•d �ti' } Proposed 11reads Schools Bike Lanes(Closess11) Parks Existing(55.8 miles) Commercial Center 1 a Proposed(23 9 miles) Open Space Bike Routes(Class 111) VineyardslAgricultural "~ Existing(2.9 mires) City boundary a l I Proposed(3-4 miles) ■o* Proposed Sharrow Routa(9.B miles) 57 Chapter 3:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Figure 15 - Composite Trails and Bikeways 1� AW r dllgr Rd - �y - �` r Ply �liort• ti } t<7 1 J Rik t••• .tiss ►` tom' +���1�R • y�/ a % ,'dna r it ■`0 4'�Sa.rne^!� �! :�,Nj*JLa tic QC 4b ip._ UPPit W � � w �}} �f�rtcryali7a{AA4d� � J t !� ■l.i. s I, ' 1 y S►'�' �► "V Proposed TraLlheads to t*Y Proposed Santa O'ertwdis Creek \< M• Trak Connections Proposed Natural Surface Trails . 4 (21.4 miles) <`t + ■••• °" Existing Natural Surface Trails I (19.2 miles) ! ATO% Proposed Horse Route(3 4 Shared Use Paths(Class 1) i Existing Paved Hard Surface Mr 4 ti �� a Tri it(7.6 miles) •4 •••,I a1 _ ! 1 1 Proposed(9 2 iles)Hard Surface Trail ` X11 Bike Lanes(Class It) I.Y•1•pR CtslrS yartRsn°,Pky r P* � -ky, �— Existing(55.8 riles) Q ••• "try.?s 1 1 Proposed(23.9 miles) +%�'w Bike Routes(Class III) Existing(2.9 rriles} 4* _. -.__ 1! Proposed(3 4 miles) •• Proposed Sha-row Route(9b iHellbrrW l- �,r J�- - miles) .••W ! Existing Off-Street=acillties ti Existing Urban Trail(16 2 miles) t Proposed Wilde Sidewalk chow s Parks Commercial Center Open Space VineyardslRgroultural City Boundary 558 OURCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBInTEMECIAXORG Figure 16 - Suggested Bicycle Routes 106!6•Rpw VIA e m�� 8a�a �Nurlr d. -�nrJroC ��� afFrcrnFa Ra qo, ti dol orb,Ry Rancho Yiafa Ru C r I V '—_ _ _... WoifaVxdavRC��w,Nw.�F`si��,d7Rancn�Pky —}. rr ''A Proposed Trellheads �. Paved Facility LaSurface it((6 y takee Skinner Trail e miles) ('06"Koloawwy (j South Side Loop Trai (8.3 miles) —'^ ti AR• Temecula loop(17 1 miles) Vvine Country Trail(4.2 miles) Schools Pars Commercial Center Open Space Ylneyards/Agricultural [=j CityBoundery 59 Chapter 3.Recommended Trails and Bikeways Wine Country Trail Temecula as Regional Trail Hub The four mile long Wine Country Trail will connect Due its prime location in southwest Riverside met* Old Town east/west across the City with the Wine County,Temecula lies in the middle of a planned Country just east of Butterfield Stage Road where regional trail network that includes the four back- it intersects the east side of the Temecula Loop bone routes noted in the previous section that Trail. It will parallel portions of Ynez Road,Rancho lie wholly within the City, but also includes other Vista Road and Rancho California Road.Most of regional trail connections to other more distant this route will be paved, but the segment along destinations, such as the Santa Rosa Plateau, a portion of Rancho California Road and another the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve,Oavilan contiguous with the Lake Skinner Trail within the Mountain, Vail Lake and Lake Skinner. Planned utility easement will be natural surfaced. regional trails include the Murrieta Creek Re- South Side Loop Trail gional Trail(part of the Temecula Loop Trail),the Temecula Creek to Vail Lake Trail, and the pro- The eight mile long South Side Loop Trail is actually posed Waves to Wineries Trail,which is planned a double loop paralleling Calle Piedra Rojo, Red- to connect with the Pacific Ocean. All three of hawk Parkway, Vail Ranch Parkway, Wolf Creek these major regional trails either exist in part or Drive,Wolf Valley Road and portions of Pechanga are in the planning stages.The following sections Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. It directly outline the significance of the trail alignments to connects with the Lake Skinner Trail at Redhawk both the City and regional networks and how their Parkway and with the Temecula Loop Trail at both interconnectedness affects the overall system. Redhawk Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. They are the culmination of years of analysis and These segments will be entirely paved. planning,based largely on City survey comments Note that these four backbone trails are com- and community meeting participant input through prised of component trails shown in previous all phases of master plan development since the maps and that many existing and proposed routes City's first survey in 1991. intersect with these. The suggested wayfinding system described in the Toolbox in Appendix A would take advantage of these connections and give users clear guidance about their relative position within the overall trails system, as well as direct them to nearby schools, parks, retail centers and other points of interest within reason- able distance of these backbone trails. Figure 17— Proposed Murrieta geek Trail System Riverwalk Trail • San Jacinto River Trail Santa Gertrudis Creels A Warm Springs Creek to Wine Country ► Lake Elsinore wildomar • t • � t Butterfieldf�A • urrleta � • 4M Trail # t s Temecula Wildon Trail • `-' M Temecula Creek& Butterfield Trail South Santa Rosa Plateau Divide Trail (U5F5) 60 OEMCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Tian Update HIIKEBIKETEMECULA.ORG Western Temecula The Murrieta Creek Regional Trail is especially Currently, walkers and bikers traveling between noteworthy and has gained wide support. It is a the Old Town Temecula area and the rest of the joint project of the Riverside County Regional City must cross Interstate 15 at freeway inter- Park and Open Space District, the Riverside changes,such as at Winchester load or rancho County Flood Control and Water Conservation California Road, mingling with heavy vehicle District (RCFCVVCD), the San Diego Regional traffic, turning motions and lane changes. Most Water qua]Ity Control Board,the Santa Rosa PIa- people are not willing to risk riding or walking in teau Ecological Reserve, the US Army Corps of such conditions, effectively making the freeway Engineers (ACOE) and the US Fish and Wildlife a barrier to east-west non-motorized travel. Even Service. It will connect Temecula with Murrieta, experienced cyclists prefer to avoid crossing in Wildomar and Lake Elsinore, but also direct con- the midst of heavy vehicle traffic if a nearby safer nections to many other trails along it length. alternative was available. The Santa Gertrudis Interconnect -s that alternative. It would replace Temecula is committed to ensure that future this uncomfortable experience with a much development projects and community planning needed, low-stress, off-street route connecting efforts support the trail's establishment, as well the Old Town Temecula are and Its surrounding as coordinating way-finding, branding and promo- developing areas(Altair and the J efferson Aven ue tion. Part of this effort was the official opening corridor)with the rest of the City east of Interstate in June 2015 with a bicycle ride from Old Town 15 via a paved pathway under the freeway along Temecula to Lake Elsinore. The trail is yet to be Santa Gertrudis Creek, fully developed, but sections exist on both sides of the creek within Temecula, which were part Analysis shoves that providing an alternative east- of an ACOE project to widen the channel to pre- west biking route to having to ride on Winchester vent future flooding. Some sections are paved Road is also a matter of safety. Bicycle collision and others are natural surfaced. Construction is analysis shows that Tem ecu la's two densest colli- dependent on RCFCD and ACOS funding (See son°hotspots"are on Winchesteron eitherside of Figure 17). Interstate 15.This is even more pronounced in the pedestrian collision hot spot analysis(See Figures Severai project surrey respondents said they 8 and 9).These maps strongly support the Santa lived or worked in Murrieta and within the survey Gertrudis Creek Trail as a safety enhancement. comments were numerous requests to provide a connection with Murrieta. While it was originally The proposed Santa Gertrudis Interconnect also conceived as a recreational amenity,the Murrieta supports Safe Routes to School, specifically for Creek Regional Trail will provide a low-stress Chaparral High School,whose site is bounded on regional bicycle commuting route that will directly three sides by Nicolas Road; Winchester Road benefit bicycle commuting between the cities and Margarita Road,and by an existing segment along Murrieta Creek. of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail,A bike/pede trian bridge crosses the creek at southeast corner Northern Temecula of the campus near the end of Roripaugh Road, a The proposed Santa Gertrudis Interconnect is quarter of a mile from the campus center. Three an extremely important to Temecula, especially bicycle collisions and two pedestrian "hot spots" within the regional trail network, as described occur at the major roadway intersections closest in GCA 1 (See Chapter 5). It is the lynch pin of to the school (See Figures S and 9). Completing Temecula's overall trail network because the the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail and making it a Santa Gertrudis Interconnect is a segment of the contiguous segment of the Temecula Creek Loop Temecula Loop Trail that circles the entire City, would likely encourage more students to bike which includes the segment of the Murrieta Creek or walk to school, and would give students who Regional Trail that lies within Temecula, and are currently walking or biking an alternative to would connect the two sides of the City bisected Winchester Road.. by Interstate 15. 61 Chapter B:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Southern Temecula (Trails along Temecula Creek) An additional creek crossing is proposed at the Non-motorized users within the neighborhoods cul-de-sac terminus of Nicolas Road, which is south of Temecula Parkway and east of Pechanga almost half a mile north of the existing crossing at Parkway are hemmed in From the rest of the City Roripaugh Road.This new crossing would provide by these high speed, high traffic volume roadways. more convenient access across the creek from the Trails along Temecula Creek are discontinuous and Hanreston area east of Margarita Road to the north biking or walking between southern Temecula and end of the campus and the school's main entrance Old Town Temecula involves crossing Interstate on Nicolas Road. The trail is currently fenced off 15 at the Temecula Parkway interchange or going from the campus and Nicolas Road, but recurring north to cross at the Santiago Road bridge over damage to the fence indicates that students and the freeway. others are likely going under it at this location, as well as others accessing the trail from Nicolas According to project survey comments and com- Road munity meeting participants, most cyclists who live south of Temecula Parkway and want to get The proposed Santa Gertrudis Interconnect is to the Old Town area cross Temecula Parkway likely to support employment access connecting and then use ❑ePortolalYnez Road to access the housing and jobs on both sides of Interstate 15 Santiago Road overcrossing to reach the Old Town because the availability of such a high quality off- Temecula area. GCA 14 addresses the crossing street connection will encourage more people to of Temecula Parkway at Redhawk by expanding commute by bike instead of driving to work. The existing sidewalks to 10 feet wide because no ad- Santa Gertrudis Interconnect also supports social ditional roadway space was available for improved equity because it will especially benefit residents on-street major bicycle facilities.This crossing point of low income housing along Pujol Street west of is important because it connects three of the four Murrieta Creek and Old Town Temecula who may backbone trails: the Lake Skinner Trail, the Tem- be less likely to own a vehicle or have access to ecula Loop Trail and the South Side Loop Trail, A one. The Santa Gertrudis Interconnect will give trailhead is proposed just south of Temecula Creek them much improved access to the rest of the City in this area (See Figures 13, 14 and 15). and its services and employment centers. The proposed trails In the Redhawk Parkway/Mar- Nicolas Road Widening garita Road/Temecula Parkway area paralleling The Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail's current eastern Temecula Creek not only connect with the South terminus is Nakayama Park on Nicolas Road at Jo- Side Loop Trail, but converge and then cross under seph Road. Nicolas Road is planned to be widened Interstate 15 to connect with the south end of the as pa-t of developer-provided improvements from Murrieta Creek Regional Trail to provide direct off- near the current terminus eastward to Butterfield street access between southern and eastern Tem- Stage Road to include a trail network within the ecula and the 0I Town Temecula area(See GCAs development, as well as continuation of the Santa 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Chapter 5). GCA 1.4 would be t Gertrudis Creek Trail to Butterfield Stage Road. part of the Temecula Loop Trail, connecting with These improvements are critical to Temecula's bike facilities on Butterfield Stage Road,the eastern overall planned trail network because they include segment of the Temecula Loop Trail,as well as the segments of two of the four backbone trails. One is starting point for the proposed Temecula Creek to a segment of the Temecula Loop Trail that forms the Vail Lake Trail, where a trailhead is proposed. A northeastern"corner"of the overall loop connecting trailhead is also proposed at the junction of GCAs the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Butterfield Stage 14 and 15 (See Figures 13, 14 and 15). Road segments of the loop.The other is the north- astern Temecula ernmost segment of the Lake Skinner Trail. which would cross Nicolas Road and ntersect with the (Temecula Pkwy/Butterfield Stage Road area) Temecula Loop Trail just east of Butterfield Stage The majority of the Temecula Loop Trail's eastern Road. A trailhead is planned immediately north of Segment lies within the Butterfield Stage Road cor- this area along the take Skinner Trail. ridor, connecting the trails along Temecula Creek in the south with the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail in the north,Two backbone trails intersect with this Temecula Loop Trail segment: the Wine Country Trail at Rancho Califomia Road,and the Lake Skin- ner Trail continues north of Santa Gertrudis Creek. 616 62 F"Vq 0onCity'of Temecula, California• Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update kIKESIKETEMECULA.DB G Trailheads and Access Points An otherwise comprehensive trail system's Utility While a relatively new idea, bike skills parks are can be undermined by lack of access. In most simply another recreational amenity, analogous to cases, this means long sections with nc access skate parks,which many cities already provide and points except at major arterials, even though the successfully manage. Compared to other typical trail passes through residential neighborhoods and park facilities, bike parks are relatively inexpensive lies near schools, parks and retail centers. Public to build and maintain, especially since they often comment and consultant experience revealed that attract volunteer support. many multi-use pathway networks lack adequate access points, including existing pathways in Over 65 percent of survey respondents and work- Temecula such as the Santa Gertrudls Creek Trail, shop attendees said they "liked" or "loved" bike Having few access points can result In a number skills parks or pump tracks. Workshop attendees of issues: pointed out that many cities have built such fa- Users must travel out-of-direction more than cilities with extensive volunteer support, including should be necessary to reach a destination. construction, materials and ongoing maintenance. While most survey respondents did not specify a • Destinations that should be readily accessible location, several suggested locating them within are not, such as schools, parks and retail. City parks. Two potential locations are adjacent • Users frequently force their own access points, to Rancho Elementary School on La Serena Way such as cutting or going under fences. and at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park as part of • Having limited locations to leave the trail in- GCAs 9 and 17 (See Chapter 5). creases the perception of danger. As part of a comprehensive bikeway system, the Limited access points makes it more difficult to League of American Bicyclists(LAB)supports bike take shorter trips, such as with young children, skills parks because they encourage children to ride To address this issue, a number of trailheads are more. In gene~al, children have shorter attention proposed at locations with enough space for ameni- spans, less stamina and prefer to ride shorter dis- ties such as vehicle and bicycle parking, seating, tances than adults. Anecdotal evidence suggests shade, and restrooms where appropriate (See that having fun,shorter riding venues helps to keep Figures 13, 14 and 15). Three new access points them interested in riding into adulthood. along the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail,including one The LAB's Bicycle Friendly Community program noted previously at the north end of Nicolas Road, awards points to cities for facilities like bike parks are recommended to address the issues noted and pump tracks since kids use them on their way above,as well as to support area businesses along home from school, and are therefore more likely to Winchester Road that lie very close to the trail, but ride their bicycles to and from school. Bike skills are currently cut off from it. parks should be distributed across the community Rum Tracks/Bike Skills Parks within kids'abilityto access them without depending P on having to be driven to them.To support this,bike- The continual increase in trail biking has led to a ways should be provided connecting associated boom in the popularity of bike skills parks, often neighborhoods, schools and bike skills parks and within city parks. These venues can be a great be well maintained. (Temecula is an LAB Bronze community asset providing a managed arena for level Bicycle F-iendly Community and facilities like beginner to expert skill development, including kids bike parks could be a significant factor in future and their parents.They also provide riding venues upgrade applications.) closer to home, ideally close enough to be ridden to instead of having to drive to a trailhead. Pump Bike skills park planning advice is available from the tracks and bike skills parks are popular with young International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA), people and participation can encourage cycling which supports such facilities close to Nome so that throughout their lives. These parks encourage rid- families and children can more easily have fun and Ing to and from the park and promote riding bicycles get exercise outdoors. as a means of transportation. While it appears from project workshop and survey results that volunteer support and labor is readily available, overall community backing needs to be assured.The following development guidelines are based on IMBA's guidance: 63 Chapter 3:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Set the stage Progression is key Identify local government allies, secure volunteer Bike skills parks must include smaller stunts that labor and funding and conduct an educational allow for low risk progression to more challenging campaign to familiarize people with bike skills terrain to attract new riders and parents who other- parks. This should include collecting web links of wise would be watching from the sidelines. Pa ren- exemplary bike parks. Most provide videos,which tal support can progress into actual participation, help people unfamiliar with the concept of bike which helps build momentum for future expansions. parks to visualize them. This can be followed by tours of potential sites. Plan for growth Bike parks are long-term community assets and Address risk management should be periodically evaluated and modified to Bike skills parks provide a level of managed risk that keep them fresh and exciting.Some advanced rid- many riders and parents will find reassuring. De- ers may move on, but this renewal will help retain �" velop standards for structures and emphasize how and attract other riders. this will be a safe place for kids to ride while saving Hire a professional desi nerlbuilder the city money otherwise spent tearing down fea- tures illegally built in private or open space areas. Communities often prefer working with a profes- sional contractor.When hiring a builder to construct Design a visually appealing facility a bike skills park, be prepared to articulate the com- Communities often reject plans perceived to be munity's needs, longer term plans, education and eyesores. Emphasize planting and other beautifi- other goals and any in-kind contributions that may cation efforts to help convince skeptics who claim be available. It is not as important to know about a bike skills park would be visually unappealing. specific materials or technical specifications as it Garden clubs and other community groups may be is to know what the community wants. willing to support beautification efforts. The following map illustrates the extent of one of the -� Develop a maintenance program most comprehensive bike skills parks built to date Develop a thorough written maintenance plan that as part of Valmont City Park in Boulder, Colorado. names each structure and have staff use an inspec- Other well-known California examples within urban tion form when performing routine maintenance parks include Fresno, Elk Grove and Folsom. checks. This will help standardize maintenance records and allow staff to easily identify features that need repair or when a rider reports a problem. Train the builders. Potential crew leaders need to be comfortable _ directing groups of volunteers, so they must have both the building skills and the leadership qualities needed to produce a first-rate facility. 11-4 a Example Bike Skills Park features ' V 6 4 0919 City of Temecula, California Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HiKEBIKETEMECUMORG Example Bike Park Map(Boulder, Colorado) t 11 T T 0Kt's s. - } r M �� t !aIlk +...lrrffll[ i G Q y18t i +!• / a , m'lase DUII1 f i ONE WAY TY all �.. (�}J10 ❑i F-k (i TWO WAY"r .<-.'{ktieAn Perk � Ten4d ul Flelµre Nml aem FalM ra tcd le�aa II- Faire Lrgo T.reala: L.,rmatun •� tarp.Tamen O Mee Q H.al—"—M A F—klea ' Q amell Tartaly. f,7 Reelroe nee 61ap f Start Phil r 6Caraa Fath .. Eb..pt 4alY'l'Teile Chapter 3:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Best Practices Maintenance Program Maintaining Bicycle Lane Continuity The following sections address the most common Bicycle facilities can sometimes "disappear" fol- maintenance issues affecting paved multi-use path- lowing roadway reconstruction. This can happen ways and natural surface trails with an emphasis on incrementally as paving repairs are made over time preventing them through proper planning, design and are not promptly followed by proper re-striping. �- and constructions practices. When combined with poor surface conditions fol- lowing long periods out of service due to roadwork, On-Street Facility Maintenance bikeway facilities can be"'lost,"which can discour- and Operations age cycling in general. Facility maintenance and performance monitoring Following any roadwork repairs, the surface must and assessment are critical for ensuring safe and be restored to satisfactory quality with particular efficient travel for cyclists and walkers. Debris on attention to smoothness suitable for cycling.Also, the streets, particularly within bicycle lanes,was the most common non-site-specific survey comment striping must be restored to the prior markings or about on-street issues. These complaints usually new markings installed if called fcr by the project. included requests for more frequent street sweep- These requirements should also be applied to ing of popular routes. adjacent construction that involves the demolition toand rebuilding of roadway surfaces. Construction Motor vehicle traffic tends to "sweep" debris like activities controlled through the issuance of permits, litter and broken glass toward the roadway edges especially driveway,drainage,utility,or street open- where it can accumulate in bicycle lanes. Swerv- ing to avoid debris or broken glass can cause loss ing permits; can have an important effect on the of control; which snakes proper maintenance a quality of a roadway surface where cyclists operate, safety priority, For this reason, street sweeping Such construction can create hazards in the form of needs to occur regularly on roadways with bicycle mismatched pavement heights, rough surfaces or facilities, especially in the curb lanes and along longitudinal gaps in adjoining pavements, or other the curbs themselves, Bicycle facilities should be pavement irregularities. Permit conditions should swept regularly,at least twice a month, and prefer- ensure that pavement foundation and surface ably more often for heavily traveled routes. Also, treatments are restored to their pre-construction adjacent shrubs and trees should be kept trimmed condit ons, that no vertical irregularities will result back to prevent encroachment into the pathway or and that no longitudinal cracks will develop. obstructing cyclists'views. Strict specifications, standards and inspections 0 There should also be a method to address contin- designed to prevent these problems should be de- gencies in a timely manner, such as areas about veloped, as well as effective control of construction which the City is receiving repors of the need for activities wherever bikeways must be temporarily additional sweeping, or following significant rain- demolished. Because surface deterioration due to falls. Roadways with designated bicycle routes, faulty roadway surface reconstruction can take time particularly those accessing Cllr Town Temecula to appear,a five year bond should be held to assure and the Wine Country, should receive priority, and deteriorations are repaired. sweeping should include the full width of the curb lanes along with their adjoining bicycle lanes. Law enforcement could also assist by requiring towing companies to fully clean up crash debris. This would prevent glass and debris from being % L Q left in place after a motor vehicle crash, or simply swept to the curb or shoulder area. r P66 11111111011mr- F� City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKESIKETEMECUMORG Asphalt Multi-use Pathways Even a small roadway resurfacing could result in The main cause of asphalt pathway edge failure a missed opportunity if cyclists and planned im- is inadequate compaction under the pavement provements are not taken into consideration early. edges. Multiuse path pavement design should Each resurfacing should be cross-referenced with begin with a soils investigation to determine the the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to highlight native soil's load carrying capabilities.The com- I� GCAs that can be implemented along with other pacted subgrade should exceed the width of the improvements. Planning for trails and bikeway planned asphalt pavement edge by a foot and the ' facilities should begin at the very earliest stage base layer exceed it by an additional foot. of project development. Where motor vehicles are driven on multi-use Strive for intra-agency coordination within the paths, especially those eight feet wide, their City to ensure that this plan's recommendations wheels usually will be at or near the path edges. are incorporated at every level of transportation Because this can cause edge damage that will,in planning, engineering and design.An integrated turn, reduce the path's effective operating width, approach results in creative funding opportuni- adequate edge support should be provided either ties, synergistic teamwork and successful proj- in the form of stabilized shoulders through the use ects at lower cost. An example is a Portland, of geotextile fabric underlay or thickened edges, Oregon's "Greenstreets Program" integrating or in additional pavement width, or a combina- traffic-calming measures and stormwater reten- tion of these. tion. Intersection curb extensions were installed to serve as atraffic-calming measure, but they Multi-use paths built along riparian corridors and through wooded areas must contend with were also designed to serve as catch basins to capture stormwater.This allowed the city to utilize tree roots that can pierce the path surfacing and stormwater retention funding to install otherwise cause it to break apart. Preventative methods costly traffic-calming infrastructure that also include vegetation removal,path alignment away serves as streetscape improvements. from trees, and root barrier placement along the path edge when it must come within 10 feet of existing trees. Asphalt Pathway First Subsequent Maintenance Task Application Applications Recommendations (Years) (Years) Check drainage compo- 1 nents for proper function Identify and complete 2 6 crack sealing Identify and complete patching 2 B Perform seal coating 4 4 67 Chapter 3:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Concrete Multi-use Pathways Natural Surface Trails Vegetation infiltration into the pavement is less As with paved trails, it is necessary to ensure that of a concern with concrete surfaces than asphalt natural surface trails are crowned or have a con- surfaces. However, it is prudent to ensure that all sistent cross-slope to drain water from the surface. organic materials are grubbed from the proposed ADA specifies that the maximum crass-slope be pathway subgrade prior to construction. two percent.It is critical to keep water from ponding on the trail surface by directing water off the trail. Tree roots can cause faulting of joints in concrete pavements along with disrupting the transverse and The following maintenance tasks intervals are longitudinal grade of slabs. Therefore, the same recommendations. Real-world factors, such as considerations and recommendations described construction materials,construction technique,trail for asphalt pathways in riparian areas are valid for usage and environmental conditions, may dictate concrete pathways and should be implemented. task completion more or less frequently than out- lined. For example, high rain seasons are likely to Joint sealing is recommended since any measure cause some erosion damage, but the additional to prevent moisture penetration into the concrete moisture levels also allow for superior compaction. pavement structure will increase serviceable life. Additionally, sealant will prevent foreign objects from entering the joint,which can cause deteriora- tion. However, cost versus benefit will need to be determined. Concrete Pathway Maintenance Natural Surface Trail Maintenance Maintenance Task Interval Maintenance Task Interval Recommendations (Years) Recommendations (Years) Check drainage compo- I Check drainage g compo - � nents for proper function nents for proper function Identify and complete S Spot fixes/localized 2 „ - crack sealing grading and shaping Identify and complete 6 patching 68 OBIBCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECUA.ORG P = RTA Bus Stops The overarching goal of an active transportation Jefferson Avenue master plan is to safely provide active transpor- tation infrastructure to persons of all abilities. Integrating master plan recommendations into the surrounding transportation and transit network is Y. intended to improve the user experience by provid- ing intuitive,safe and recognizable routes connect- •: ing the active transportation and transit networks, making both more viable. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides bus ser- vice for the Temecula area with three routes that operate within the City and three commuter routes that connect with transit centers in Oceanside, Corona and Moreno Valley. _ Of particular concern for this plan are the bus stops themselves.The accompanying example on Jeffer- son Avenue illustrates conditions common to RTA stops in Temecula-no shade or weather protection, seating,sidewalk or ADA-compliant access,and the stop is not located near a controlled intersection equipped with crosswalks. Improving cyclist and pedestrian access to transit helps to expand the sphere of influence for both cyclists and walkers. Improvements should be guided by a set of best practices as they apply to transit stops and associated bicycle and pedestrian improvements.Specifically,making bus stops more comfortable and accessible can encourage transit Winchester Road use and create a safer environment for all users. Best practices include flush curb—to-bus board- ing,ample seating, shade and weather protection, all-weather paving, lighting, and public art where space permits. When feasible.street furniture,trash cans and park- ing for mobility devices and bicycles at transit stops should also be included, and bus stops should be located on the far side of intersections.An example of a stop on Winchester Road that meets all recom- mended criteria is shown in the lower photo. �lr.1n 69 Chapter 3:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Promenade Temecula Like most malls, Promenade Temecula was laid Ring Road out primarily to support motor vehicle acces- sibility from the surrounding streets. Pedestrian infrastructure outside the core shopping area is not nearly as refined as that within the core. Its short"Main Street"entering from the southeast is relatively accessible,but the surrounding parking lot and circulation roadways are not.The mall also lacks bicycle facilities. _�`? Even so,there are a number of potential revisions that can be done to better connect Promenade = Temecula with planned and existing bicycle lanes and trails that come close to it, and to provide facilities to help attract patrons who want to ride y ,- or walk there. �►�,. - . General Recommendations Main Street • Sidewalks where "desire lines" now exist • Overall intersection enhancements, espe- cially high visibility pedestrian and cyclist crossings On-site Recommendations • Short-term customer bicycle parking(such as + in-street bike corrals near the Apple Store) • Secure, covered bicycle lockers for employ- ees (may be out of line of sight, but readily overseen by security) • Ring Road bicycle enhancements such as Y signage, shared lane markings and green transition lanes u Off-site Recommendations • Pedestrian enhancements to N. General "Desire Line"along roadway Kearny Road/James L. Day Middle School • Directional signage on Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail with distances to nearest mall entrance at Ynez Road(2,600 feet),Promenade Mall Way (1,200 feet) and Margarita Road (1,800 feet) • Connection enhancements with proposed Long Canyon Creek Trail-GCA 2(See Chapter 5) Many of these recommendations could be part of any future redevelopment. Outside Promenade - Temecula, improvements should prioritize wide pathways and enhanced roadway crossings con- necting adjoining neighborhoods with the mall. J ~ T' 7b "BIBCity of Temecula,California-Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HINEBIKETEMECLt A ORG Old Town Temecula Bicycle Friendly Business [district A bicycle friendly business district (BFBD) is a Old Town Temecula is an ideal BFBD candidate partnership between a city, neighborhood and due to its existing compact bicycle friendly con- business organizations and local businesses that figuration of a relatively low-stress street grid and improves a business district's bicycle friendliness its mix of entertainment and dining venues. The through bicycle infrastructure and local business City has already installed shared lane markings,a promotions to people travelling by bicycle. BFBD bike fix-it station and bike corrals. Being a BFBD services, infrastructure and other program ele- and highlighting its bicycle friendliness could ments combine with privately funded local invest- make Old Town an even more viable commercial r ment in bicycle amenities and programs imple- and recreational destination by helping to attract mented by neighborhood and business partners. more potential customers to its businesses. BFBDs encourage and promote short,local trips, Survey respondents cited Old Town Temecula especially for shopping, dining and recreation. as a desirable casual cycling destination specifi- , BFBD programs work in conjunction with Com- cally because of its business mix. Also, as new r -•"rt plete Streets and traffic calming objectives to residential development occurs in Old Town and •; capture local and tourist dollars to help support this plan's bikeway CCAs are implemented,it will neighborhood business development. become much better connected with the City's overall bikeway system, making it even more desirable destination.Future branding could spe- cifically highlight Old Town Temecula as a BFBD. Shared Lane Markings-Ofd Town Front Street Main Street Bridge r IL • r J 71 r Chapter 3:Recommended Trails and Bikeways Design and Implementation The facility recommendations fisted in this chapter Physical design should be guided by the Tool- " will be implemented on a case-by-case basis to box— Design Guidelines (Appendix A), which is address connectivity and as part of intersection intended to provide the latest design guidance Iq and roadway segment improvements as need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It has been arises and funding allows. This also applies to compiled and customized for Temecula,including ow, the CCAs addressed in Chapter 5. The follow- conceptual signage designed for the backbone ing chapter addresses supporting programs to trail system described previously. Even though encourage more biking and walking in parallel the Toolbox represents design guidance up-to- with this chapter's facility construction solutions date for when this pian was prepared (March and the GCAs,as well as their potential funding. 2016), bicycle facility design, in particular, con- tinues to advance. Federal and State design guidance should be consulted prior to preparing plans based on these recommendations. Natural surface trail along Butterfield Stage Road �a t � - 72 4/ FlanCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update KINE$I KE TEMECULA.On PROGRAMS AND FUNDING SOURCES 4 Federal Sources Federal, State and local government agencies The previous federal transportation funding authori- invest billions of dollars every year in the na- zation, MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the Ca tion's transportation system. Only a fraction of 21 st Century), has ended and been replaced with ! �: that funding is used in development projects, a new funding mechanism. in late 2015, Congress , policy development and planning to improve passed and President Obama signed into law a conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Even five year, $305 billion transportation bill, called the though appropriate Funds are limited, they are Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) ' available, but desirable projects sometimes go Act, It is the first law enacted in over a decade that ��' `*� 2 unfunded because communities may be un- provides long-term funding certainty for surface - - aware of a fund's existence,or may apply for the transportation, meaning States and local govern- wrong type of grants.Also,the competition be- ments can move forward with critical transportation tween municipalities for the available bikeway projects. and trail funding is often fierce.Whenever fed- Notably, the bill requires all design for National eras funds are used for bicycle or trail projects, a certain level of State and/or local matching Highway System roadways to take into account ac- funding is generally required. State funds are cess for all modes of transportation. It also makes often available to local governments on similar NACTO's Urban Design Guide one of the U.S. terms. Almost every implemented bicycle and Department of Transportation's roadway design trail program and facility in the United States standards, as well as permits local governments has had more than one funding source and it to use their own adopted design guides if they are often takes a good deal of coordination to pull the lead project sponsor,even if it differs from their the various sources together. state guidelines. According to the Federai Highway Adminis- tration's (FHWA) publication, An Analysis of Current Funding Mechanisms for Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs at the Federal, State and Local Levels, where successful local bi- cycle and pedestrian facility programs exist, there is usually a full time active transportation coordinator with extensive funding source un- derstanding. Cities such as Seattle, Washing- ton, Portland, Oregon and Tucson are prime examples. Active transportation coordinators are often in a position to develop competitive and detailed project proposals that can be used to improve conditions for cyclists and walkers within their jurisdictions. Some of the following information on federal and State funding sourc- L " es was derived from the previously mentioned FHWA publication. 73 Chapter 4.Programs and Funding Sources Safe Routes to School Programs Caltrans administers two separate Safe Routes to thorize the LWCF with almost 200 co-sponsors School programs. The first is the State-legislated in December, 2015, It is now funded for three program referred to as "SR2S" and the second is years at $450 million, 50 percent more than the federal program referred to as "SRTS." Both previously. programs are intended to achieve the same basic goal of increasing the number of children walking Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assi$- and biking to school by making it safer for them to tance Program (RTCA) do so. SR2S is now a part of the Active Transporta- This program is the National Park Service's tion Grant program (ATP) described in the "State community assistance arm. The RTCA pro- Sources." vides technical assistance to communities to preserve open space and develop trails. ROTA The SJRTS Program funds non-motorized facilities funds can not be used for infrastructure. As- that improve access to schools through the Caltrans sistance is specifically for construction plans, Safe Routes to School Coordinator. Eligible appli- engag ng public participation and identifying cants include State, local, and regional agencies other sources of funding for conservation and experienced in meeting federal transportation outdoor recreation projects.A local example is requirements. Nonprofit organizations, school dis- the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail,for which the tricts, public health departments, and Native Ameri- NPS is a prime partner agency. can Tribes must partner with a city,county, MPO,or RTPA to serve as the responsible agency for their Other Infrastructure Funding Options project. Eligible projects include stand-alone infra- The American Recovery and Reinvestment structure or non-infrastructure projects, Projects ,qct of 2009 is commonly referred to as the must be completed within four years after project ,stimulus"or the"stimulus package"and targets is amended into FTIP. Targeted beneficiaries are infrastructure development and enhancement. children in grades K-8. No local match is required. In 2011, the original expenditure estimate of Department of the Interior- Land and Water $787 billion was increased to $840 billion to Conservation Fund (LWCF) be in line with the President's 2012 budget and with scoring changes made by the Congressio- The U,S. Recreation and Heritage Conservation nal Budget Office since the enactment of the Service and the California Department of Parks Recovery Act. There was no end date written and Recreation (CDPR) jointly administer this into the Recovery Act because, while many of funding source.The Lana and Water Conservation its projects were focused on jumpstarting the Fund is a 50 year old budget neutral program that economy, others are expected to contribute to reinvests a portion of the royalties from offshore oil economic growth for many years. and gas leasing into recreation and conservation priorities. The program has a tremendous track States must use 18.2 percent of their funding. record of success and broad bioartisan support, for public safety and government services.An and has been used to expand protected areas eligible activity under this section is to provide and improve recreation facilities in every state. funding to K-12 schools and institutions of Projects acquired or developed under the LWCF higher education to meet green building stan- program must be primarily for recreational use and dards, This is particularly applicable for active not transportation purposes, and the lead agency transportation and Safe Routes to School must guarantee to maintain the facility in perpetuity projects because the Leadership in Energy and for public recreation. Environmental Design {LEER} Green Building 6Rating System, developed by the U S. Green Applications are evaluated using criteria including Building Council (USGBC), addresses green priority status within the State Comprehensive standards for schools that include bicycle and Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The CDPR pedestrian facilities providing safe access to selects which projects to submit to the National Park schools. Service(NPS)for approval. Final approval is based on the amount of funds available that year, which Another $5 billion is provided for the Energy is determined using a population-based formula. Efficiency and Block Grant Program. This pro- Trails are the most commonly approved project. vides formula funding to cities, counties and states to undertake a range of energy efficiency Though it was allowed to expire at the end of Sep_ � tember,2015,widespread public outer is credited activities, An eligible use of funding is bicycle p p y and pedestrian infrastructure. with r•elping to goad Congress into voting to reau- 74 gemCity of Temecula, California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECU ADRG State Sources State Highway Account Transportation Development Act Article 3 Section 157,A of the California Streets and (SB-821) Highways Code requires Caltrans to set aside TDA funds are based on State sales tax, with rev- $360,000 for the construction of non-motorized enues made available primarily for transit operating facilities that will be used in conjunction with and capital purposes.By law,the Riverside County the State highway system. The Office of Bi- Auditor's office estimates the apportionment for the cycle Facil ties administers the State Highway upcoming fiscal year. Account fund. Funding is divided into different project categories. Minor B projects (less than TDA Article 3 funds may be used for activities re- $42,000) are funded by a lump sum allocation lated to the planning and construction of bicycle and by the California Transportation Commission pedestrian facilities such as engineering expenses (CTC) and are used at the discretion of each leading to construction, right-of-way acquisition, Caltrans District office. Minor A projects (esti- and construction or reconstruction.This can include mated to Gust between$42,000 and $300,000) a number of activities, such as retrofitting existing} must be approved by the CTC, Major projects bicycle and pedestrian facilities to comoly with (more than $300,000) must be included in the ADA requirements, route improvements like signal State Transportation improvement Program controls for cyclists,bicycle loop detectors and rub- and approved by the CTC. Funded projects berized rail crossings.Also eligible are the purchase have included fencing and warning signs re- and installation of facilities such as intersection lated to rail corridors. improvements, bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, rest rooms, showers adjacent to paths, Caltrans Active Transportation Program employment centers, park-and-ride lots and/or (ATR) transit terminals accessible to the general public. This program was created to encourage in- creased use of active modes of transportation, Local Sources such as biking and walking, It consolidates Developer Impact Fees existing federal and State transportation pro- As a condition for development approval, munici- grams, including the Transportation Alternatives palities can require developers to provide certain Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Ac- infrastructure improvements, which can include count (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus bikeway projects. These projects have commonly to make California a national leader in active Provided Class II facilities for portions of ori-street, transportation. The ATP is administered by the previously planned routes. They can also be used Division of Local Assistance, Office of Active to Provide bicycle parking or shower and locker Transportation and Special Programs. This is facilities.The type of facility that should be required a competitive program intended to increase to be built by developers should reflect the greatest biking and walking trips, safety and mobility, need for the particular project and its local area. Care should betaken to demonstrate a clear nexus to support regional agency greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, enhance public health, ben- between the project and the mandated improve- ment disadvantaged communities,and include a meat to avoid legal challenges, broad spectrum of projects.As of March 2015, New Construction no local match is required, Future road widening and construction projects The SR2S component of the ATP addresses are one means of providing on-street bicycle facili- eligible city and county infrastructure projects. ties. To ensure that roadway construction projects Projects must be infrastructure projects within provide bicycle lanes where needed, it is important two miles of a grade school or middle school that the review process includes input pertaining and be completion within four years after proj- to consistency with the proposed system. Future ect funds are allocated to the agency.Targeted development in the City will contribute only if the beneficiaries must be children in grades K-12. projects are conditioned. 75 Chapter 4:Programs and Funding Sources Restoration Private Sources Cable, TV and telephone companies sometimes Private funding sources can be acquired by need new cable routes within public rights-of-way. applying through advocacy groups such as the This has most commonly occurred during expan- League of American Bicyclists and the Bikes Be- sion of fiber optic networks.Since these projects long Coalition. Most private funding comes from require a significant amount of advance planning foundations wanting to enhance and improve and often disrupt curb lanes, it may be possible bicycle facilities and advocacy.Grant applications to request reimbursement for affected on-street will typically be through the advocacy groups as bicycle facilities to mitigate construction impacts. they leverage funding from federal, State and In cases where cable routes cross undeveloped private sources. areas, it may be possible to provide for new trail facilities following completion of the cable trench- ing, or sharing the use of maintenance roads. of the funding sources available. Other Sources Volunteer programs may be developed to sub- stantially reduce the cost of implementing some routes, particularly multi-use trails. For example, a local college design class may use such a multi- use route as a student project,working with local landscape architectural or engineering firms. �- Work parties could be formed to help clear the route.A local construction company may donate or discount services beyond what volunteers can do. A challenge grant program with local busi- nesses,schools or families may be a good source .-• +• of local funding, through which they can "adopt" a route or segment of one to help construct or maintain it. Trail adoption plaques{Park City, UT} Awl TRAIL # EMPIRE 1! LINK F >V1�Olk � 4- 99 4a MID s tt 3 + w'14 r+ ,� JI [AMlrtl�Ib i 176 0019 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIDE BIKETEMEC ULA.oRG Table 5- Potentia! Funding Sources Federal Sources Funding subject to north/south split (60%for Southern California). Grants $460 National 50% + may be used for statewide outdoor Parks Service/ 2-6% recreational planning and for acquiring Conservation Act of eral;$3.6 Dec-Jan admin. Land and Water million fed- California and developing recreational parks and 1965 (LWCF) million CA Department sur_ facilities, especially in urban areas. (2012) of Parks and charge Provides matching grants to state and Recreation local governments for land acquisition and development for outdoor recre- ation use. Funds wide variety of bicycle and pe- $10 billion destrian improvements, including on- federal; street bicycle facilities,off-street trails, Surface Transportation $888 mil- ° sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and Program(STP) lion CA FHWAICaltrans June 1 20/° pedestrian signals, parking and other (pre-set- ancillary facilities. May be exchanged aside, pre- for local funds for non-federally certi- penalty) fled local agencies.No match requfred if project improves safety. Transportation $820 Funds construction, planning and million design of facilities for pedestrians, Alternatives Program federal; FHWAIMPO Annual 2D°/o [TAP) Includes Trails $72 5 bicyclists and other non-motorized and SRTS Programs million CA farms of transportation, $5.75 Federal/ million FHWA, Region- Percentage of TAP funding allocated Recreational Trails guaranteed Regional Annual al must to Recreational Trails Program at dis- Programagency may not (set-aside also contribute exceed cretian of State. from TAP) 95% Federal Funds construction and maintenance 80- projects located on National Highway National Highway $1.9 billion FHWAfCaltrans 100System(NHS),including those related Performance Program to bicycle and pedestrian infrastruc- State ture.Certain safety projects may have 0-20% federal cost share of up to 100%. 77 Chapter 4:Programs and Funding Sources w.• $2.4 billion Funds projects that address safety federal; Federal issues and may include education Highway Safety $197 9D/oo ; and enforcement programs. Pro- Improvement Program million CA FHVVAICaltrans N/A State gram includes Railroac-Highway (HSIP) (pre-set- 10% Crossings and High Risk Rural aside, pre- Roads programs. Bicycle projects penalty) must provide high degree of safety. Funding includes pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities Congestion Mitigation $464 construction and nonconstruction and Air Quality(CMAQ) million CA FHVVA1Caltrans April 20% projects related to safe bicycle use. Amount depends on state's popula- tion share and on degree of air pollu- tion nonattainment areas. Caltrans proposed funding SRTS 84% from $21 million set aside in STP, Safe Routes to School $21 million FHVVACaltrans, federal; approved by CTG as one year Program (SRTS) then MPO N/A 20% policy. Future funding for SRTS to (2R12) State be determined through FAST Act -- implementation process. Staff time Rivers,Trails and awarded National Park Funds expenditures such as bike- Conservation Assis- for Service August NIA way plans, corridor stcdies, bike- tance Program (RTCA) technical ways end trails assistance. assistance $3.2 billion Provides formula funding for cities, Energy Efficiency and federal; Department of ,tune N/A counties and states to take part in Block Grant Program over$35 'Energy energy efficient activities. million CA 78 0919 City of Temecula, California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update HIKE@1KETEMECULA.ORG $2 million HUD and 90"x° Funds improve land use and trans- M Community for planning CA Dept. of federal; Development Block and technical Housing and Ongoing Q come neighborhoods infrastructure in citywide (CgBG) assistance Community 10In come neighborhoods or citywide for (2013) Development local accessibility improvements. May be used to fund building bicycle Federal Lands $611 million FLH/FHWA Ongoing Varies and pedestrian facilities in conjunc- Highway Program (2008-10) tion with roads and parkways at discretion of grantee. Pilot Transit- Federal Transit Funds planning efforts to increase Oriented $10 million Administration N/A N/A pedestrian and bicycle access to Development transit hubs. Planning Program 80°x° Typical projects have included bicycle 1% of capital lockers and parking near transit sta- Urban- assis- tions and stops. Recipients of Sec- Associated Transit ized Area Federal Transit tance; tion 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Improvements Formula Grant; Administration/ N/A 50°x° Grants) must certify spending no less ($45 million in MPO opera than 1 pereent of federal transit funds FY2014) tion at on associated transit improvements assis- (formerly transit enhancements). tance Partnership for $409 million Funds preparing or implementing Sustainable in grants and/ HUDIDOT1EPA Ongoing NIA regional plans for sustainable devel- or assistance Communities (2010) opment. Community Regional health Funds implementing broad, sustain- Transformation and planning N/A N/A$35 million able strategies to reduce health dis- {2012} parities and expand preventive health Grants{CTG) agencies care services. 79 Chapter 4: Programs and Funding Sources Nderai Sources TR - Can be used for innovative, multi- $474 modal and multi jurisdictional Transportation million 80% transportation projects (including Investment federal; bicycle and pedestrian projects) Generating Economic $31 US DOT October federal, that promise significant economic Recovery Program million in and environmental benefits to an (TIGER) California State entire metropolitan area, region or (2013) the nation. Minimum project cost is $10 million. Can be used for projects to provide Bus and Bus Facilities $2'17 80% bicycle access to public trans- Program:State of Good billion Federal Transit March federal; portation facilities, specifically for Repair federal Administration 201° shelters for people, bicycle park- (2014) State ing amenities and accommodating bicycles on transit. 90% Can be used for bicycle and pe- $125 Federal Transit federal; destrian support facilities, such as Bus Livability Initiative million March bicycle parking, bicycle racks on Administration 10% (2012) State buses, pedestrian amenities and educational materials. Pacific Varies, Federal Lands West generally Funds transportation modes that Transportation Program, Region October; reduce congestion and pollution in Category 3, "Alternative awarded FHWA pro- N/A parks and public lands. (Formerly Transportation" $3.08 grammed Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks million through Grant Program) (2013) 2017 88.53% match Funds to replace or rehabilitate Local Highway Bridge $304 for local public highway bridges over water- Program million FHWAICaltrans Ongoing highways-, ways, other topographical barriers, 100%for other highways, or railroads. federal highways Assists private, non-profit cor- porations and public agencies in providing transportation services $20-35 Federal Transit Annuallto meet needs of seniors and Section 5310 million Administration y 11,47°�° persons with disabilities for whom public transportations services are l+r otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate. mai• 80 ,g 09M City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Pian Update HIKESIKETEMECULAORG 44 State Sources MEN Q= March Must have an adopted Bicycle ;a State Highway Account: p Y Bicycle Transportation Varies Caltrans (Consult 10% Transportation Plan. Funding Locol available for all project phases. Account(BTA) Assistance) ect p j P Consolidates STA,Transportation Active Transportation $124 Caltrans Two-year Alternatives and Safe Routes to X, Program million cycle 12% School funding.60%awarded by State,40%by MPOs. Transportation $149 Local MPC 2%of TDA total,funds for bicycle Development Act(TDA) million or CTC Annually NIA and pedestrian projects. Section 919234 (2014) 4 billion Regional Improvement $3. Every two Capital improvement projects over 5 Caltrans NIA Program(STIP) years (planning and rideshare activities). years AB-2766 Vehicle $30 million SCACRB February NIA Competitive program for projects Registration Funds (2010) that benefit air quality. Vehicle Registration Competitive program for projects Surcharge Fee(AB-434) NIA APCB July N/A that benefit air duality. RCF 40°/°from Vehicle Registration grant APCB Funds distributed to county com- Surcharge Fee(AB-434) source munities based on population. Developer Fees or Project- Cities Ongoing N/A Mitigation required during land Exactions specific use approval process. Allnrated State Gas Tax NIA by State 'Monthly N/A Major projects>$300,000. (local share) Auditor-Can- allocation troller State and Local Est.$200 Road projects with bicycle lanes. Transportation million Caltrans Summer 50% Requires developer or traffic fee Partnership Program state-wide match. (SLPP) Projects such as upgraded Caltrans Minor Capital Varies Caltrans Ongoing after NIA bicycle facilities must be on state Program July 1 highways. Environmental State None Enhancement and $10 million Resources October required, Individual grants limited to Mitigation Program state-wide Agency annually but $350,000. (EEM) favored 81 Chapter 4; Programs and Funding Sources -- -- _ — State Sources - Funding Cycle Caltrans, CA Ccrnmunity Projects must save energy, Petroleum Violation Es- Varies Services and March NIA provide public restitution and be crow Account(PVEA) Development, approved by CA Energy Commis- Air Resources sion and US DOE. Board Community Eased Transportation Planning $3 million Caltrans November 20% Projects must have a transporta- Demonstration Grant tion component or objective. Program Habitat Conservation CA Dept of Fund Grant Program $2 million Fark and October 50% Funded through July 1, 2020. (HCF) Recreation Goal to reduce vehicle fatali- Office of Traffic Safety Varies Office of January NIA ties and injuries through safety Program(OTS) Traffic Safety program to include education, enforcement and engineering. State Transportation Gives metropolitan reglons more Improvement Program Varies Caltrans Every 4 years NIA control over state transportation (STIP) fund investment. California CCC provides emergency assis- California Conservation NIA Conservation NIA NIA tance and public service ccnser Corps (CCC) Corps vation work. E=ngage low-income and minor- ity communities in transportation Environmental Justice $9 million Caltrans Annually 10% projects to ensure equity and (EJ) Planning Grants {2010) positive social, economic and environmental impacts. Create or expand trails for walk- CA Natural in bic clip andicr a uestrian California River Varies Resources October NIA g' y g 4 Parkways Agency activities compatible with other ��. conservation objectives. i I. f- r$2 S" 0919 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update WKEBIKETEMECUA.ORG r � Annual Total �undlng Parking Meter Districts can use Parking Meter Annual parking meter revenues for Districts N/A City Budget NIA streetscape improvements such as pedestrian facilities, landscap- ing and lighting. Riverside County Eligible projects include sidewalks, Transportation Up to SB-821 Varies Commission Annually 2b% bicycle paths,lanes and routes, (ROTC) and access ramps or curb cuts. Riverside County Western County, public transit Transportation includes funding for specialized Measure A $400 million Commission Annually NIA transit, commuter rail, intercity (RCTC) bus service and commuter as- sistance. Direct funding of innovative plan- SCAG ning initiatives for member agen- Sustainability Varies SCAG Annually NIA cies through Compass Blueprint Program Demonstration Projects. New division intended to assist bicycle and pedestrian planning SCAG Active efforts. Program focus on efforts Transportation Varies SCAG Annually 11.47% to meet local needs, contribute to Program implementing SCS and reducing greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions. 83 Chapter 4:Programs and Funding) Sources Private Sources _. Funding GrantS A L I - .A.. Cycle - - - -.No specific Numerous programs to support funding cycles Healthy Initiatives. Most applicable Community N/A Kaiser at region; N/A is Healthy Eating Active Living with Health Initiatives Permanente accept letters grant focus on environmental and of inquiry year policy approaches to healthy eat- round ing and active living. Grants focused on bicycle infra- None structure such as paths, lanes, required, trails and bridges, mountain bike but lever- facilities, bike parks and pump Community Grant People for age and tracks, BMX facilities, and end-of- Up to $14,440 Twice a year funding ing,Also facilities such as advocacy projects, trip i park- ProgramBikes partner- such as programs that transform ships city streets, including Ciclovias and important initiatives to increase ridership or investment in bicycle infrastructure. Donated labor and materials for fn-kind Services N/A Depends on NIA N/A facility construction or maintenance project such as tree planting programs or trail construction and maintenance. sources'Xitillable to Local t - - Must be AHS Alliance member and 501(c)(3). Hikers as primary constituency, but mufti-purpose Annual, trail uses eligible. Funds acquisi- American deadline tion, including conservation ease- National Trails Grants from Hiking application N/A ments for projects that will result in Fund w540 to$5,440 Society visible and substantial ease of ac- mid-February cess, improved hiker safety and/or avoidance of environmental dam- age, Higher preference often given to projects with volunteer labor. Must be Alliance for Biking and Walking and League of American Grants from Bicyclists member and 501(c)(3) $1,440 to or 501(c)(4),with immediate op- Advocacy $3,000, but portunity and specific timeframe Rapid Response staff can N/A NIA for campaign to raise additional Grants decide to Advance federal, state or local funding for give more for biking and walking infrastructure special cases and/or programs; or proposes winnable, replicable campaign with lc measurable results. 84 HE3 City of Ternecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HHI KEE MY BEC ULR.ORG Cap Closure Alternatives (GCAs) is This trails and bikeways plan addressed active The following GGA sheets include existing condi- transportation improvements throughout Temecu- tions,a project text and graphic/map description, la in the form of bike lanes,shared bike facilities, the project's benefit/core value and estimate cost. sidewalk and intersection improvements, paved Figure 18 illustrates their locations. paths and natural surface trails. All of the following GCAs are important and � This chapter is a compilation of the gap closure should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis r J` alternatives(GCAs)developed as an integral part as public or private development is proposed, of this plan update. They represent the highest street and intersection improvements are made, priority trail and bikeway improvements based and parks and open space are developed. The on community Input and address the residents' following GCAs are therefore not "ranked" or desires to Iii nk these non-motorized facilities into shown in any ranked order.Their numbering is for a truly comprehensive network that connects the reference only, starting in the northwest working kinds of destinations they want to access by bike to the southeast portion of the City. or on foot,especially schools, parks,open space, and shopping and employment centers.. In addition,these alternatives illustrate erre option for closing a bike lane or trail gap. Cather options Upon implementation, the result of these efforts may be considered using the Toolbox, Design will be an interconnected network designed to Guidelines in Appendix A. achieve the linkages the community desires, as well as encourage more residents to get around via active transportation rather than by driving, which survey respondents strongly supported. WL ar' • It w � _ 85 5:Gap Closure Alternatives Figure 18 - Gap Closure Alternatives 4 " GlAfar�q�gr1 4a� 'r'kd Neln'8t / "44 R+nche y�.y Rd r�4 WCA MANY Rd /00" 13 � 14 . r" — ` GCA End Points GCA Projects Schools PaAs " Cammemal Center Open Space wteyardslAgnoullurat Q Chy&undary 86 Santa Gertrudis Creek Interconnect 0,,Aln HIKEaIMETEMECULURG Existing Condition Y 1 The Santa Gertrudis Creek Recreational Tiaii is a paved, multi-use path that doubles as a Riverside County Floodo, Control and Water Conservation District maintenance road approximately 15 feet wide, and striped to provide a two- way, multi-use trail along the south bank between Joseph and Ynez Roads to just east of Interstate 15, immediately north of Winchester Road. 1 � Interstate 15 is a major barrier to east-west connectivity in the City of Temecula, forcing cyclists and walkers to deal f.° a with heavy vehicular volumes and turning movements at ++' ggga the Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and Te- mecula Parkway Interchanges.This CCA would providc a4 much needed, Class I (off-street)trail connection between the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail and the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail, which currently terminates at Winchester and Diaz Roads. Ownership: Riverside County Flood Control and Water ", raw' Montessori ; Conservation District(RCFCWCD) + . school Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description Segment length.0.97 miles(5,137 feet) This GCA would provide undercrossings at Ynez Road, In- terstate 15 and Jefferson Avenue for a continuously paved asphalt path from Joseph Road in Nicolas Valley to Rancho California Road just north of Old Town Temecula. It would connect the Santa Gertrudis Creek Regional Trail to the ,. Murrieta Creek Regional Trail. Engineered drawings have been completed,and this GGA has been,and continues to be, identified as a "future years" project. This GCA would require environmental review and permits, along with an access and maintenance agreement with RCFCWCD. 711 Benefit/Core Value View west of proposed south side route from southbound Interstate Based on 2002 and 2013 community surveys, this is the 15 Winchester Road offramp City's single most important trail connection, and to re- gional trails bey-ond. It would provide safe, east-west con- nectivity under Interstate 15 on a Class l off-street facility. This GCA would also complete the Temecula Loop, a trail encircling the City utilizing the Santa Gertrudis Creek Rec- reation Trail, Murrieta Creek Regional Trail, bicycle lanes and natural surface paths on De Portola Road, and Class II bicycle lanes on Butterfield Stage Road. The Temecula Loop will provide a family-friendly, recre- ation trail, and a bicycle commuter route connecting hous- ing with jobs, schools and shopping centers, including - Promenade Temecula and Old Town Temecula.In addition, , this GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, y, and a Sustainable City. View east of existing path at Ynez Road d ?? _ ;IC E+:ire�!Jr>v IEI CIn l:ntlrtr,. �/IIIC[Ulbrtl} ! • Canyon Connection HIKE BIKETEMEC ULA.oRG Existing Condition The existing route is primarily a creek channel dirt road 'tib running behind a series of public facilities, crossing Margarita Road and Overland Drive. Ownership: Private and City of Temecula Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description i,ma Cem This off-street route wouldcon nectJamesDay A�liddle5chool Z` -0A,art and Long Canyon Creek Park on North General Kearny •t ���` Road to the Promenade Temecula and an employment center to the west. The route includes crosswalks at the ��v r Promenade Way/Overland drive intersection, as well as a crossing of Margarita Road at Georgetown Lane. A wide sidewalk is recommended on the east side of Margarita i between where the route intersects Margarita and the i + crossing immediately south of Georgetown. A median Q�0 `- barrier is recom-nended to discourage users from crossing Margarita other than at the crosswalk at Georgetown Lane. f,' % ,wr---- -- if a mid-block crossing is planned, a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) s recommended due to Margarita Road's number of travel lanes and 45 mph speed limit. Segment length:1.37 miles(7,288 feet) This route would require coordination with private property owners for access and maintenance. Existing gates would need to be converted to vehicle exclusion only. An interim route employing Class II bicycle lanes is sug- gested on Margarita Road and Overland Drive. Benefit/Core Value _ -.This route provides a paved,low-stress alternative to riding - - - - a bicycle on mwti-lane arterials such as Margarita Road, as - well as provides improved crossings of major roadways. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy _ Ilk and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, -and a Sustainable City. View east from Margarita Road x 4 li It - . .. - s 1 Class l Multi-use Path View south from Camino Campos Verde (10'paved,4"RC on 8"compacted sub-base,typical) L? C_(�4�Z _ _ ' 4YFw�auni+� North General Kearny Trail Uan HIKE BIKETEMECULA.ORG Existing Condition Nr_ V•. rpi;r" This route is a combinatlon of residential roadways and aro ►� "' existing segment of off-street natural surface path shown on Google Maps as the"North General Kearny Trail."The H r^senna+ on-street portions include segments of North General ,. Kearny Road, as well as Nada Lane, all of which are ° oe contiguous with each other. / Ownership: Meadowview HOA and City of Temecula ~` f.3'r' c / Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description ; ,p None This route would connect the James L. Day Middle School area with parks on Nicolas Road, as well as the Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail,part of the Temecula Loop Trail.(The City vacated portions of North General Kearny Road/Nada ���~ Lane, but retained right-of-way for a public trail easement.) A From the south, this route would be on-street Class II a bicycle lanes to Calle Pina Colada, Class I multi-use trail 'CFr :01 between Calle Pina Colada and Calle Madero, Class III bicycle route with shared lane markings on Nada Lane ,•'" between Calle Madero and Valle Olvera Street, and then Segment length.0.95 miles(5,009 feet) Class II lanes north to Nicolas Road. This route would require a public trail easement from Meadowview HOA. BenefitlCOre Value This route provides a Safe Route to School connection for James L. Day Middle School students, as well as other users from the surrounding residential neighborhood. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy -- _`• =c „ c-and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. i View south from Calle Madero ROUTEBIKE Class I Multi-use Path Class N Bicycle Route View northeast on Nada Lane .. (10'paved. 4"AC on 6"compacted l7 sub-base,typical) w ,.., !i thm rn(.SII DF— WIh6 C.Y I'y INicolas Valley Trail Connection � • HIKEBIKETEMECULAARG Existing Condition This route follows a dirt road between Murrieta Hot Springs - ;�pHs?r+n4■_Ra_4 1 Road and Nicolas Road. Ownership Private and City of Temecula ! i i 4 Gap Closure Alternative(GCA)Description This route will connect open space immediately north of i Murrieta Hot Springs Road with both the Nicolas Valley and a portion of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area open space trail system. It would also connect with the proposed ag° Temecula Loop Trail at Santa Gertrudis Creek. ` This route would require coordination with private property KakayaW Pivertan owners for access and maintenance. Park Park t s I Segment length,:0.66 miles(3,497 feet) Benefit[Core Value This route provides a paved, off-street north/south connection between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road where flew such routes exist. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy y - and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, `� and a Sustainable City. Aerial view north J11 ft06 ;r Class i Mufti-use Path View north from Nicolas Road .� ('t O'paved,4"AC on ti"compacted sub-base,typical) Fla, ,� ihi .w. •� xill.. .-ilrr. Murrieta Creek Trail - South UMN HIKESIKUEMECULAARG Existing Condition , c This route is adjacent to an existing segment of the natural- surfaced Murrieta Creek Trail adjacent to Jefferson Avenue on the east bank of Murrieta Creek between Rancho California Road and and the south leg of Moreno Road. Ownership: City of Temecula ; ` {rr:,�_.f ► Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description s� t SARI Pock• {� This GCA would add a parallel paved path next to the •� fr *e��{scot existing DG-surfaced Murrieta Creek Trail segment along Old Town Front Street between Rancho California Road and Moreno Road. It also adds shared lane markings ~++ ("Sharrows") on Old Town Front Street along the same segment and curb modification on the west side of Old Q �� -town Front Street at Rancho California Road to narrow the "���y `•+ +++ �''�, roadway approach into Old Town Temecula. Additional design features are recommended to address the Rancho California Road crossing with improvements ; that support all user types, including pedestrians and equestrians. This may include enhanced paving, signage, Segment length:0.22 miles(9,165 feet) user-actuated signals and traffic signal timing modifications. (Roundabout shown in concept purr addressed in Old Town Temecula Specific Plan-not included in GCA) Benefit/Core Value This GCA would add a paved trail adjacent to an existing DG-surfaced trail to function as a low-stress, off-street y continuation of the Murrieta Creek Trail, along what will be a popular walking and cycling route between Old Town Temecula and the redeveloping Jefferson Avenue area north of Rancho California Road. It also improves the on- street experience for cyclists on Old Town Front Street. through traffic calming and marking. In addition, this GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and Murrieta Creek Trail approaching Old Town Temecula a Sustainable City. ■ IIIIpV t a W_ An Class l Multi-use Path(along existing DG side path) Shared Lane Marking on Old Town Front Street (10'paved,CAC on 6"compacted sub-base,typicat) 3]3 z mOr an at Sou chem C.1116rnia � y{ Winn GoanliY' Murrieta Creek Trail - South OUR -- HIKEBIKETEMECULA.ORG RIO ■ • Y T sharrows(T*) 112 inches 72 IneY�Cs i �•— 40 Inches_1 Shared Lane Marking(Sharrow) CA MUTCD Figure 9C-9 Multi-use Paved Path Parallel Natural Surface Trail Landscape Enhancements z North -Rancho r ■ • r Ilan HIKE BIKET E M E C U LA.f 3 R G Existing Condition This route is the existing Rancho California Road right-of- way between Old Town Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and Diaz RoadiVincent Moraga Drive. Ownership: City of Temecula i1 �� 5 ,,�°i r 11 ► L�`�o l I t► 1 9 e ` Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description ; t, ,,• •' ', This GCA would provide a buffered or fully protected Class II bicycle lane on the south side of Rancho California Road, as well as a two-way cycle track on the north side. It would also close the eastern leg of Diaz Drive to vehicles and remove excess paving. `. Additional traffic calming features may also be appropriate, ��, `� 6 1 such as corner curb extensions. w � 4 Design features are recommended to address the io crossings at either end of this segment,such as bike boxes, enhanced paving, signage and signaling that supports all user types, including pedestrians and equestrians. Segment length.0.20 miles(1,030 feet) Benefit/Core Value l This route provides a low-stress connection between the Jefferson Avenue and Old Town Temecula areas across Murrieta Creek and the developing neighborhood on the west side, as well as directly and safely connecting with planned trails along Murrieta Creek. PIP This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. 1 View east on Rancho Califomia Road bridge across Murrieta Creek Olin! 4 ! Class ll Buffered Bicycle Lanes and Two-way Cycle Track(Class IV) View north across Rancho California Road to Diaz Road east leg Rancho/ r / Road/ 1 H I KE BIKETEM E C ULA.ORG t `w Multi-use Paved Path Parallel Natural Surface'frail ' landscape Enhancements ' . ti • High Visibility Grosswa ks * Enhanced Signals and Signage w Two-way Cycle Track Walkway K Rail Buffered Bike Lane R r . Raised Roundabout ,. I'f Bike Box 5harrows(Typ.) Green Transition Zone Suffered Bike Lane Median 1 A Not to scale North Murrieta. Creek Trail - North Uall H I ICE BIKETEMEC ULAARG Existing Condition % This route is an undeveloped corridor along Murrieta Creek ie Trail between Rancho California Road and Del Rio Road. , Ownership:City of Temecula i a� i e a Gap Closure Alternative (GCA)description This GCA would provide a paved extension of the M„rrieta Creek Trail between Rancho California Road and Del Rio 0 ; Road, as well as a parallel natural surface trail. Additional design features are recommended to address ; ..fin. the Rancho California Road crossing, and are addressed -► -�: �� under GGA 5a. + ! ' M Um Htcks � -j 6 rte' Mcnuanrnf Segment length.0.80 miles(4,244 feet) Benefit[Core Value This GCA would provide a low-stress, off-street, paved and natural surface continuation of the Murrieta Creek _ Trail along what will be a popular walking and biking �- route between Old Town Temecula and the redeveloping Jefferson Avenue area north of Rancho California Road. - This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, -and a Sustainable City. = View north from Rancho Califomia Road r 1 �t UK Class l Multi-use Path View southwest from JeffersonAvenue -r• (f0";caved,4"AC an Fcompactedsub-base,typical) j wmt e.; u Murrieta OUR HIKEeINETEMECUTAARG Match Line I i r v �4 r� Multi-use Paved Path 1 Parallel Natural Surface Trail 1 � I 1 4 � 1 IY I 4 I I Ih h J Y y, a ! s 5, Multi-use Paved Path Parallel Natural Surface Trail Landscape Enhancements a� 0 , AL Match Line Moreno ' . . . Bypass � HIKEBIKETE ME C ULA.O RG Existing Condition This route is primarily the right-of-way of the southern leg ; i �► r,R of Moreno Road between Old Town Front Street and the Caltrans Interstate 15 right-of-way. Ownership:City of Temecula and State of California � i�`�'•'�'��w $5' �Q.cun.Gz ► ► 4' ■ � a c Sam k[cks Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description ►ti WPa merit This GCA would provide buffered Class II bicycle lanes on 'r ' Moreno Road to a future Interstate 15 crossing. � w ■ Old Town Front Street crossing featurQs are recommended, e such as median and pedestrian refuge. If this roadway is 19 narrowed, corner curb extensions may be appropriate. A 9 trail head may be included adjacent to the Interstate 15 right-of-way. (Roundabout shown in concept plan is addressed in other '► area planning and not included in GCA) ►1 Segment length:On-street 650 feet,Off-street 260 feet Benefit/Core Value This route provides a low-stress,paved connection between the Jefferson Avenue and Old Town Temecula areas and destinations east of Interstate 15. This route bypasses the high volume, steep, eastbound Rancho California approach to Interstate 15 and would take users to where they will be able to more safely access any future freeway crossing facilities. (This GCA reflects recommendations in "Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Assessment - September - 2014"prepared for the City.) This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. View north on Old Town Front Street at Moreno Road L Class It Buffered Bicycle Lanes View east on Rancho California Road toward Interstate 15 a • � � Ih.k+.n o{'SorAfwm Cglsfur.s wm.cnru-•r More-noRoad Bypass OUR H I KE BI KETEME C ULA.ORG tk Multi-use Paved Path f y e High Visibility Crossing Enhancements t I Dual Suffered Bike Lanes r r. Green Transition Zones North a z 'Yukon 13 , • • H I KE BIKETEM ECULA.dRG Existing Condition This route Is primarily dirt roads and informal trails along flood control channels and through open spaces just north of Rancho California Road, between Ynez Road east of r` Interstate 15 and Yukon Road west of Margarita Road. A ��'" & segment east of Moraga Road is a concrete lined channel with no adjacent roadway. Ownership: Private, City of Temecula, Riverside County rmwc+la Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCW- �•+��•E'°'""'•� com+nuinaL srrr�w CD)and Temecula Valley Unified School District 7bw ti Temecule Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description ' e, E This GCA would be a paved enhancement of existing dirt ; J. ~`•�_- ,• roads and informal trails along flood control channels,then `.�`.rfr ,,1. Cwnopury continue west to Diaz Road, at Murrieta Creek. Exact lay- D"kP—' g i out(north or south sides or both)will be considered. "se Ra/I Implementation will require coordination with private prop- erty owners for access and maintenance. Segment length:1.31 miles(6,929 feet) Benefit/Core Value This route employs existing dirt roads and flood control channels to provide an east/west,paved off-street connec- tion between the residential neighborhoods in this area of the City with other destinations east of Interstate 15. It also , - --_ provides direct off-street Safe Routes to School access for • Temecula Elementary School students and retail centers at both ends. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthyand Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. View east from Moraga Road ar 3 "^S Class l Mu&use Path f lVpaved,4"AC on 6"compacted sub-base,40cao 7] tj � 16.H.nr:a+Sadhnn,i,:.di+u+rvr, Winn C. wa,K Calle Medusa Trail # ! u Fk HIKMIKETEMECULA.ORG Existing Condition RWennri � Far. + An existing dirt road begins at Calle Medusa and runs i northwest behind the residential developments along Cal- + le Medusa and Wellington Circle. The road has moderate + grades between its origin off Calle Medusa and the valley i floor west of Wellington Circle. ; + Ownership:Private(HOA) f ga r Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description 4k This GCA would take advantage of an existing dirt road off a low volume residential street.This GCA would be an ■, i enhancement of an existing dirt road within open space between residential developments. + + Wvrcna Implementation will require coordination with private property owners for access and maintenance, such as addressing existing fences and gates, and providing + removable bollards. r e�+ Rancho Elam entary � v School �... + Benefit/Core Value Segment length:0.34 miles(9,778 feet) This route provides the surrounding residential neighbor- hoods with a direct, natural surface connection to the trails planned for the adjoining Nicolas Valley area and the pro- posed Arbor Vista project.This would give users off-street access to not only the Nicolas Valley area, but also the _ { Santa Gertrudis Creek Trail immediately north of Nicolas Road,which is to be part of an overall Temecula Loop Trail. The northern end of this segment would be fess than half a mile from the Santa Gertrudis Trail's existing east end at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Joseph Road. Finally, this GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Con- _ nectivity, and a Sustainable City. Exis€ing entrance off Calle Medusa Natural Surface Trail Aerial view north-Existing Santa Gertrudis Trail at upper left f he hews a savtk,c i n t��lrfdnv+ ` � � Wnu Gawvrtrr Lake Skinner Trail HIKESIKETEM ECULA.ORG Existing ConditionThis route is an existing utility dirt road running roughly north/south between Meadows Parkway in the south and Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the north. A Ownership: Metropolitan Water District(MWD) i s. Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description This GCA would take advantage of an existing utility dirt road that runs the entire length of this segment as a road- r way enhancement through residential development. It ex- •yam �, p 14 tends to the northern City boundary and would connect urr•4 with trails around Lake Skinner and beyond. It would also serve a planned bike skills park adjacent to Rancho Ele- mentary School on La Serena Way. �.v „.n■y" Implementation will need to address existing fences and j gates, as well as secure an access and maintenance agreement. However, unlike the southern portion (8b),the City would only need to coordinate with one entity, MWD. A controlled crossing,such as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Segment length:2.24 mites(11,821 feet) (PHB),will be needed at Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Benefit/Core Value t This route provides an off-street, natural surface connec- tion for the surrounding residential neighborhoods with planned bicycle lanes on La Serena Way, which would Y ''�•' connect with Rancho Elementary School and Temeku Hills Park to the west, and Serena hills Park to the east. It also � I - provides north-south connectivity through the City and be- yond to County open space at Lake Skinner. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a!-Healthy L and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. View north from La Serena Way mv AhL w Natural Surface Trail View south from Heitz Lane llf f3..N,.,.,a1�w,ilmm 4nNlar is WipM CaMI�'f - �''� ke Skinner . Trail • H I KE BIKETEM ECULA.ORG Existing Condition This route is a dirt road running roughly north/south be- �, tween Rancho California Road and Temecula Parkway. .►r _�•r Ownership: Paloma Del Sol HOA„ Metropolitan Water Dis- * P +% / NO— �.... trict(MWD) and Linfield Christian School Ry_ -gdMb•Rd -- {'rr�tdner 1G 1 Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description r.■ .000 This COCA would be an enhancement of a dirt road thruugh residential development. ( , Implementation will need to address existing fences and i r gates, as well as secure access and maintenance agree- meats with MWD and private property owners.A controlled a,- crossing, such as a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon ; g•°°'�' (RRFB)or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon(PHB),will be need- ed at Pauba Road. Segment length:2.25 miles(11,873 feet) BenefitlCore Value This GCA would provide the surrounding residential neighI will - borhoods a natural surface, off-street route using an ex- isting dirt road that would directly connect with Temecula Valley High School and Temecula Valley Adult School, and •+ well as other nearby private and charter schools. It would also provide a connection with the other facilities near the schools,such as those in Ronald Reagan Sports Park. r - x � �, :,� •�► ,____ This GGA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. - View north at YnerlDe Portola Road(Note original sign) a AA Natural Surface Trail View north at Pauba Road31 .. J11 Ronald Reagan Sports Park HIkEBIKETEMECULAARG Existing ConditionCA s This route is a combination of informal statural surface r paths through open space and paved park paths of varying widths. It runs east-west between Ronald Reagan Sports Park and a utility easement. v.r �' $, -' Ownership. Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Private, City of Temecula and City of Temecula Community Services District I'' P,»ri✓ Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description ,• ate!'yp .,. This GGA would be an enhancement of a dirt road and walk- r f•y°'pu' ways through the park and open space. It would provide an east-west connecting paved trail through the park and open space, as well as a singletrack trail loop system within the &J open space and a bike skills parkipump track. ; Benefit/Core Value This GCA would provide an off-street route between a Segment length:0.83 miles(4,372 feet) north/south utility easement on the west and Margarita Road to the east. It would also provide internal connectivity between a number of public facilities, including Ronald 7 valle'y Reagan Sports Park, Temecula Community Recreation Center,Temecula Skate Park, as well as Temecula ValleytAwP High School immediately across Margarita Road from the sports park. In addition, the adjacent open space may support a network of single-track trail loops, which would draw additional users from the surrounding neighborhoods, Sk %paixFT the rest of the City and beyond. AV This GGA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, vT' and a Sustainable City. , Aerial view north of approximate alignment(red) and potential single-track loops(blue) r fs .c, t Natural Surface Trail Aerial view southeast of approximate alignment(red)andAm- potential single-track loops(blue) �.r Warn ul)r».,Jhern 4;.JJkpr.» Margarita to Ynez Trail Connection HI KESIKETEMEC UiA.O RG Existing Condition "--- This route is primarily a utility easement dirt road running northeast/southwest between Margarita Road and Ynez Road. Ownership: Metropolitan Water District(MW®) r y 4�. SpnrHt�r+�! L � Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description ; This GCA would be an enhancement of a dirt road through is residential development.. Implementation will need to address existing fences and gates, as well as secure an access and maintenanceagreement with with a single entity, MWD. Schuaa Segment length:1.58 miles(8,346 feet) BeneftlCore Value This GCA would provide the surrounding residential Y neighborhoods a natural surface, off-street route using an - existing utility dirt road that would directly connect with a proposed path through Ronald Reagan Sports Park (GCA ' 9)and another similar east/west route(GCA 11). This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. n mew south at Margarita Road v V_ v Natural Surface Trail View north at Santiago Road 1 �, Vail Trail Ilan HIKEBWETEMECULA.ORG Existing Condition ; This route is an dirt road running roughly eastlwest be- tween Moraga Road the east and Southern Cross Roadto the west. Ownership: Private and Southern California Edison (SCE) Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) DescriptionOO(; w ,P� This GCA would be an enhancement of a dirt road through residential development_ r Implementation will need to address existing fences and ��--`•, r�u Rryrn ,gates, as well as secure an access and maintenanceff `� y �p�� agreement with SEC. `y ,� `. vd M \ 1 Benefit/Core Value Segment length:a8i miles(4,273 feet) This GGA would provide the surrounding residential neigh- ! borhoods an off-street,paved route using an existing east/ west dirt road that directly connects with another proposed off-street path accessing the Ronald Reagan Sports Park (GCA 9). It also provides a Safe Routes to School function since it comes within a short distance of Vail Elementary School. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. Yew east at Santa Cecilia give Sr 'f rl J� r dk y Class l Multi-ruse Path View west at Southern Cross Road (i0'paved 4"AC on 6"carnpacted subbase,typical) 1 i AMA - ri.�i.rsit u'Sor+lre.r.n C`.n4i 1 � W nrr CnJngry Jedediah long= HIKEBIKETEMECULA.ORG Existing Condition This route follows the alignment of Jedediah Smith Road 11'`�_-- �'" where it terminates south of Temecula Parkway,and a dirt road along Temecula Creek. The City vacated Jedediah Smith Road,but reserved a trail ------ easement _--easement for a future pedestrian bridge. ' - Ownership:Private and City of Temecula r--- --------------- Pal's COMMUMly PW10 Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description This route crosses Temecula Creek from the north via the alignment of Jedediah Smith Road where it terminates south of Temecula 'Parkway, to the south side Temecula41 '�� Creek using a dirt road that continues under Pechanga 1 Parkway. Segment length:0.55 miles(2,887 feet) This GGA would require a significant bicydelpedestrian bridge or a seasonal at-grade creek crossing to make this connection. Benefit/Core Value This GCA would provide a primarily off-street, low stress, paved route between the residential neighborhoods south of Temecula Parkway with the retail and service land uses on the north. It would allow users to cross Temecula , Creek while avoiding the very heavy traffic volumes at the Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway intersection. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. Vmw north ftom Pechanga Parkway �4 f - I ' Class I Mu&use Path View south fmm Jededr'ah Smith Road (?[!'paves!4"AC on 6"compacted sub-base,typical) 11 gip; Jedediah Smith Extension OUR HIKEBIKETEMECULA ORG z. r IL Multi-use Paved Path Parallel Natural Surface Trail Landscape Enhnacaments BicyclelPedestrian Bridge See following page for enlargement_ .n, �.5. Y North ' Jedediah Smith Extension 1398 HIKEBIKETEMECULAGRG . Offset Nigh Visibility Crosswalks Enhanced Signals and Signage Landscape Enhancements Paved Multi-use Path Jug Handle' .» Transition to-Crosswalk Green Transition Zane Buffered Bike Lana Not to scale North Temecula Creek North [in H I KE BI KETEM ECU tA.ORG Existing Condition This route is primarily a dirt road along Temecula Creek on the north side of Temecula Creek between Via Rio Temec- ula and Redhawk Parkway. Jori n Ownership:Private, City of Temecula and Riverside County m+get Flood Control and Water Conservation District jRCFCWCDj "'l' --05, RedVMWk ��+ Commune C �� �� nark t 10 Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description This route would parallel Temecula Creek on the north side, ► ��� connecting Redhawk Parkway and Avenida de Missiones, *•,,f providing accesses at those points to the overall creek trail system from adjoining neighborhoods. ENe srsnrry, Implementation will need to address existing fences and A110fde 41ntergurn gates, as well as secure access and maintenance agree- School !omori&I Park Serroor'x ments with RCFCWCD and private property owners. Segment length:0.64 miles(3,395 feet) BenefitlCore Value =� This CCA would provide a segment of an important region- - - �+►._ al off-street, east/west route along Temecula Creek that accesses residential and retail development, as well as a existing crossing of Temecula Creek via the Redhawk Parkway bridge. It also connects with an existing paved path segment(in fair condition)east of Redhawk Parkway. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, - and a Sustainable City. -4 View west from Via Rio Temecula y _ v r mr,"I _ a V Natural Surface Trail View south from Redhawk Parkway �. Margarita Road line HIKE BIKETE MECULA.O RG Existing Condition This GCA would be located where Margarita Road crosses Temecula Parkway within a large commercial shopping district.Both are multi-lane,high volume arterials and there is no available roadway space for bicycle facilities. Off- ; street facilities are planned along both sides of Temecula u Creek immediately to the south of this GCA. Ownership: City of Temecula Nagle "r'' Gap Closure Alternative (GCA) Description 'a'" This route would be an off-street shared-use facility comprised of wide sidewalks paralleling Margarita Road where it crosses Temecula Parkway within a large �� -� r-., Park commercial shopping district. Crossings may require safety enhancements due to high traffic volumes, such I as high visibility crosswalks, warning signage and signal 5egmer#length.4.34 miles(1,694 feet) optimization. Benefit/Core Value This GCA would provide a parallel off-street alternative to riding on a major arterial through a busy commercial district with high volume roadways with no room for on- street bicycle facilities. This segment would connect with --- —- - existing Class II bicycle lanes at either end on Margarita w Road and Redhawk Parkway, requiring crossing Temecula Parkway. This route would provide a direct connection to planned off-street bicycle facilities along Temecula Creek, - - -� as well as connecting the residential neighborhoods north and south of Temecula Parkway with those facilities. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. View south on Margarita Road at Temecula 1'arfcway Curb-adjacent Wide Sidewafks View north on Margarita Road at Temecula Parkway j 1 '�� 11�argarita Road BUIE HIKEBIKETEMECULPLORGj LF AL 4 •� +" til "�Y � r r . �.`., North Creek South Temecula ,Inn 4i H I KE BI KETENE ECULA.ORG Existing Condition 6 This route is primarily a partially paved flood control channel road on the south side of Temecula Creek between Redhawk Parkway westward to just past Corte Sierra. �• �, g Ownership: Private, Rancho California Water District, o•�e�m ei N Y �, Riverside County Flood Control and District (RCFCWCD) _ and Temecula Valley Unified School District -� �� + ^•°� *„� r..�'�r� "”" Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description r This route would parallel Temecula Creek on the south ... , side, connecting Butterfield Stage Road and Jedediah Smith Road, providing accesses at those points to the overall creek trail system from adjoining neighborhoods.A mid-block crossing will be needed at Redhawk Parkway. � ;� Implementation will need to address existing fences and gates, as well as secure access and maintenance agree- ments with the water district, RCFCWCD and private prop- Segmentlength:2,42 miles(T2,762 feet) erty owners. Benefit/Core Value This GCA would provide a paved segment of an important regional off-street, east/west route along Temecula Creek, including off-street access to residential neighborhoods and Redhawk Community Park, as well as a crossing of Temecula Creek via the Redhawk Parkway bridge. It could also take advantage of the existing parking lot at Redhawk Community Park as a trail head. This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. _y 4 Class f Multi-use Path View west from Redhawk Parkway {10'paved,4"AC on 6"compacted sub-base,typical) ] Temecula Creek South 13913 H I KEBIKETE MEC U LA.O RG Refuge Median Offset High Visibility Crosswalks <, Enhanced Signals and Signage r` N f. Green Transition Zone IL a - A Not to scale North Great Oak Trail ConnectionIlula HIKEBIKETEMECUL A.ORG Existing Condition Great Oak High School occuples the south side of Deer Hollow Way between traffic signals at Pechanga Parkway and Peachtree Street. The school's parking lot lies at the southeast corner of the Pechanga ParkwayMeer Hollow {' Way intersection. Students arriving via the Great Oak Trail arinc a ' have only one protected crossing of Deer Hollow Way at the Pechanga Parkway/Pala Road intersection. Cox MIVA �•`_ � Ownership: City of Temecula f seE � `f 4A Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) DescriptionThis GCAwould install enhanced mid-block crosswalks with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) to provide safer crossings of Deer Hollow Way between the high school and the sports fields, as well as fencing and wider Segment length.0.21 miles(1,093 feet) sidewalks, particularly to channel Great Oak Trail users to the Pechanga/Deer Hallow intersection.An education and promotional campaign is also recommended to accompany the installation. Benefit/Core Value This GCA would deter unsafe crossings by providing mid- block crosswalks and wider sidewalks to safer and more visible connections between the sports fields and Great Oak High School. (This GCA reflects recommendations in �^ , a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Assessment-September 2094"prepared for the City.) This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, and a Sustainable City. View east on Aeer Hollow Way I f Mid-black Crosswalk with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon(RRFB) View west on Deer Hollow Way • Ike 14art.r!Sa+.i rier e_ni4ip,,.• WONCAunliy. - L` : 16 Great Oak Trail connection ill A0 Z&z i jk J -OA . . € Q c d�16 _ rpt y,.+ ��•' - LF �4, I • _ 1 .1�� r1 Q r a V. f \' Great , ~ _Trail 11919 HI KEBIKE TEM EG U L.A.O RG Nigh Visibility Crosswalks Widended Sidewalk Green Transition Zones t } Nigh Visibility Crosswalk Widended Sidewalk and Fencing 74F Akr Nigh Visibility Crosswalk Widended Sidewalk Thi Green Transition Zones i Not to scale Refuge Median r. •' A Offset Nigh Visibility Crosswalks North Enhanced Signals and Signage HIKEBIKETEMEOULA.ORG Existing Condition This GCA's site is the northwest corner of Ronald Reagan Sports Park near the intersection of Rancho Vista Road and Margarita Road. Ownership-City of Temecula Gap Closure Alternative(GCA) Description The GCA would consist of a enmpacted dirt pump track_ Pump tracklocatian(Approximate) Pump tracks are constructed of packed dirt sculpted into a series of rollers and banked turns. They are typically designed to permit a bicycle rider to traverse a looped course with minimal pedaling. The images shown below are of existing pump tracks.The design of each pump track is unique,so Temecula's pump track will not be exactly like the images shown. The pump track area development will also include a a ` hardscape paved entry area with signage that describes the ' park and its rules, bench seating and bike racks. It will also require water and power utilities to service the pump track. Benefit/Core Value '_ This GCA reflects strong citizen interest in such bicycle skills facilities, as expressed in public meeting and online survey responses conducted for the City of Temecula Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update. µ This GCA would satisfy the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City. AA Example pump tracks .� -j I& Wing:Hta+t a4 ya„ataern Caai}drr�s Gnunlry' ! .,. ,� �.-.- f y Y} C � ��� •�. , �f �� � he nearlaf5 ailw:ml:al;i�� ffii II � =Wl���w jC,ytl�4`uu I� _- �`��. • .yam� �� 1109 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update 4iWMKETEMECULA.ORG Appendix A: Toolbox - Design Guidelines This appendix is intended to assist in the selection Existing standards are referenced throughout and and design of bicycle and trail facilities through il- should be the first source of information when seek- 1 ustrati ng best practices by facility type from public ing to implement any treatments featured here. agencies and municipalities nationwide. Design Several agencies and organizations provide design " treatments are addressed within a singie sheet standards for bike and pedestrian facilities in the •.ter tabular format relaying important design informa- US, including the most commonly used manuals tion and discussion, example photos, schematics shown below. (if applicable)and existing summary guidance from current or upcoming draft standards. MonuAl on rm r _ Dcv6cco 6"hw A.swat.-end 0 1 Bicycle Facilities tlt7"Pw.A Cr-•-. i llI/I�/l�'/fl�11''ll,■l Sx111 ,a App1 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines National Standards The Federal Highway Administration's Manual on The National Association of City Transportation Of- Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines ficials'(NACTO)21314 Urban Bikeway Design Guide the standards used by roadway managers nation- is the newest publication of nationally recognized wide to install and maintain traffic control devices on bikeway design standards and offers guidance all public streets, highways, bikeways and private on current design state of the practice. Its intent roadways open to public traffic.The FHWA MUTCD is to offer substantive guidance for cities seeking forms 0he basis of the California MUTCD. to improve bicycle transportation in places where competing demands for right-of-way present unique To further clarify the MUTCD, the FHWA created challenges, All NACTO Urban Bikeway Design a table of contemporary bicycle facilities that lists Guide treatments are in use internationally and in various bicycle related signs,markings,signals and many cities around the US. other treatments and identifies their official status, such as whether it can be implemented or is cur- Meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) re- rently experimental. See Bicycle Facilities and the quirements is an important part of any bicycle and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. pedestrian facility design.The United States Access Board's proposed Public Rights-of-Way Acces- Bikeway treatments not explicitly covered by the sibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and the 2418 ADA MUTCD are often subject to experiments, inter- Standards for Accessible Design(2010 Standards) pretations and official rulings by the FHWA. The contain standards and guidance for the construction MUTCD Official Rulings is a resource that allows of accessible facilities.This includes requirements website visitors to obtain information about these for sidewalk curb ramps, slope requirements and supplementary materials. Copies of various docu- pedestrian railings along stairs. ments(such as incoming request letters,response letters from the FHWA, progress reports and final Some of these treatments are not directly refer- reports) are available on this website. enced in current AASHTO Guide or MUTCD ver- t sions,although many treatment elements are found American Association of State Highway and within these documents, In all cases, engineering Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the judgment is recommended to ensure that the ap- Development of Bicycle Facilities,updated in June plication makes sense for the context of each treat- 2012 provides guidance on dimensions, use and ment,given the many complexities of urban streets. _ layout of specific bicycle facilities. The standards and guidelines presented by AASHTO provide ba- sic information,such as minimum sidewalk widths, bicycle lane dimensions, detailed striping require- ments and recommended signage and pavement markings. Additional References and Guidelines FHWA. Bicycle Facilities and Manual on Uniform Traf- fic Control devices.2011. MUTCD Official Rulings. FHWA. App2 OUR City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEWETEMECULAARG State Standards and Guidelines California Highway Design Manual (HDM) New Legislation Allowing Safety Stan- (2012) dards Other Than Caltrans HDM This manual establishes uniform policies and AB-1193, signed into law in September 2014, al- procedures to carry out highway design functions lows local agencies to adopt, by resolution, safety for the California Department of Transportation. standards for bikeways other than Caltrans' High- The 2012 edition incorporated Complete Streets way Design Manual. According to the Legislative focused revisions to address the Department Di- Analyst,AB-1193"allows local governments to de- rective 64 R-1. viate from state criteria when designing bikeways, t but does not give them complete control. Cities ' Complete Intersections: A Guide to Re- and counties that elect to use design criteria not constructing Intersections and Inter- contained within the HDM would have to ensure changes for 'Bicyclists and Pedestrians that the alternative criteria have been reviewed and (2010) approved by a qualified engineer, are adopted by This California Department of Transportation ref- resolution at a public meeting and adhere to guide- erence guide presents information and concepts lines established by a national association of public related to improving conditions for bicyclists and pe- agency transportation officials,such as the National destrians at major intersections and interchanges. Association of City Transportation Officials."The bill The guide can be used to inform minor signage also expands the definition of bikeways to include and striping changes to intersections, as well as cycle tracks or separated bikeways, also referred major changes and designs for new intersections. to as "Class IV bikeways," which promote active transportation and provide a right-of-way desig- Main Streets: Flexibility in Design & Op- nated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a erations (2005) roadway and which are protected from vehicular This Caltrans booklet is an informational guide that traffic. Types of separation include, but are not - reflects many recent Caltrans manual and policy limited to,grade separation,flexible posts,inflexible updates that improve multimodal access, livability physical barriers, or on-street parking. and sustainability within the transportation system. The document will help users locate information NCHRR Legal Digest 53: Liability Aspects about standards and procedures descried in the of Bikeways (20 t0) Caltrans Highway Design Manual(HDM),the Cali- This digest is a useful resource for city staff con- fornia Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices sidering innovative engineering solutions to local- (California MUTCD)and the Project.Development ized issues. The document addresses the liability Procedures Manual (PDPM). of public entities for bicycle collisions on bikeways as well as on streets and highways. The report will be useful to attorneys, transportation officials, planners, maintenance engineers and all persons interested in the relative rights and responsibilities of drivers and bicyclists on shared roadways. $-I)M ti►�-.►rr tl l.'+ 1. All 1. r App3 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Bicycle Facility Standards Compliance Some of these bicycle facilities covered by these indicates a treatment is not specifically mentioned, guidelines are not directly referenced in current but is allowable assuming M UTC D-complia nt signs AASHTO Guide or California MUTCD versions, and markings are used. In all cases, engineer- IV many treatment elements are found within ing judgment is recommended to ensure that the these documents.An W'in the following table Iden- application makes sense for the context of each tifies the inclusion of a particular treatment within treatment, given the potential complexities of any the national and state design guides. No marking specific site. California Guide for the Urban Bikeway MUTCD Development of Design Guide Facility Type Bicycle Facilities 42014) 4 42014) 2012) Signed Shared Roadway X X Marked Shared Roadway X X X Bicycle Boulevard X X Bicycle Lane X I X X Buffered Bicycle Lane X X X Cycle Tracks "fine-way sidepath" X Bike Box X X Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes X X f X Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas FHwA Interim Approval X X Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane X X Intersection Crossing Markings X X X Wayfinding Sign Types and Placement X X X Shared-Use Path X X X Active Warning Beacons X X X Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons j X X X c ` App4 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update H I KE B I KE TE MECU LA.ORG Multimodal Level of Service Description Discussion Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) methods HCM 2010 model for Bicycle LOS calculation limi- are used to inventory and evaluate existing condi- tations include: tions, or to forecast future conditions for roadway . Calculations do not address gradients. users under different design scenarios. While automobile-oriented LOS measures vehicle delay, • Contemporary facility types included in this Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit LOS is oriented guide, suc-i as shared lane markings, bike toward user comfort. boxes or cvcle tracks, are not included in the HCM (Florida LOSPLAN update does feature MMLOS scores different modes independently, cycle tracks). but their results are interdependent, allowing an . Scoring is for a"typical"adult bicyclist and heav- understanding of trade-offs between modes for ily weighs the presence of bike lanes. Results different street designs. A compatible A-F scoring may not be appropriate in communities than system snakes comparison between anodes simple, seek to encourage bicycle travel by people of There are a variety of Multimodal or Bicycle/Pe- varying ages and abilities where bike lanes may destrian LOS tools available far use. Different tools not be adequate. require different data and may present different or conflicting results. Despite potential limitations of MMLOS methodology,the results help jurisdictions better plan for all road users. Guidance MMLOS modeling is an emerging practice and cur- rent methods continue to be improved and revised. Additional References and Guidelines Local resident and planner knowledge should be Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity used to verify MMLOS model results. Manual.2010. ` The current standard for MMLOS Calculation is Florida Department of Transportation, LOSPLAN. described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual 2012. (HCM 2010), This method has limitations. particu- Fehr&Peers, LOS+ Multi-Modal Roadway Analysis larly for Bicycle LOS modeling (See Discussion). Tool. An alternative MMLOS method/tool should be Mineta Transportation Institute. Low-Stress Bicycling considered if HCM 2010 is not appropriate for the and Network Connectivity. 2011. community. Other multimodal "Service Quality" tools include: • Florida DDT LOSPLAN LOS+ • Mineta Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis - (Bicycle-only scoring) Apps Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Bicycle Facility Selection There are no 'hard and fast' rules for determining the most appropriate type of bicycle facility for a particular location — roadway speeds, volumes, right-of-way width, presence of parking, adjacent land uses and expected bicycle user types are all critical elements of this decision. Studies find that the most significant factors influencing bicycle use are motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.Ad- ditionally, most bicyclists prefer facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic or located on local roads with low motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. Because off-street pathways are physically sepa- rated from the roadway,they are perceived as safe and attractive routes for bicyclists who prefer to avoid motor vehicle traffic. Consistent use of treat- ments and application of bikeway facilities allow users to anticipate whether they would feel com- fortable riding on a particular facility and plan their trips accordingly. This section provides guidance on various factors that affect the type of facilities that should be provided. 0 st Apps IlanCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULA.ORG Facility Continua The following continua illustrate the range of some corridors, it may be desirable to construct bicycle facilities applicable to various roadway facilities to a higher level of treatment than those environments, based on the roadway type and recommended in relevant planning documents in desired degree of separation. Engineering judg- order to enhance user safety and comfort. In other ment, traffic studies, previous municipal planning cases,existing and/or future motor vehicle speeds efforts, community input and local context should and volumes may not justify the recommended level be used to refine criteria when developing bicycle of separation and a less intensive treatment may I facility recommendations for a particular street. In be acceptable. Arterialihlighway Bikeway Continuum (without curb and gutter) Marked Wide shvu'dar Wide Shoulder Cycle Trick ~'� Shared Use Path I Shared Lune Curr Lane P.i4C N.ty Sikeoay Prolected With_ >A S? C+ LM T.J'O=N�J 7 Arterial/Highway Bikeway Continuum (with curb and gutter) Marked Wtde conventwal Buffered Cycle Track- Cycle Track: Circle Track-. Curb Lane Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane At-Grade,protected Protected wilh Curb Separated with parking Barrier . v T. kAl7 Collector Bikeway Continuum Shared Lane Marked Wide Conventional Wide 61cycie Buffered Curb Lane Bicycle Lane Lane Bicytte Lane 71 i � _ _- ►� t � t t App7 Appendix At Toolbox-Design Guidelines Facility Classification Description These design guidelines utilize the California standard Caltrans facility types, but list them in an order based on what many users consider the most important factor affecting whether they would use them -their degree of separation from motor vehicle traffic and the likely level of traffic stress. The Caltrans facility type designations are therefore described in the following sequence: Class III (bike route), Class II bike lane), Class IV(cycle track) and Class I (multi-use path).Also, in many instances, existing street conditions may be fully adequate and even comfortable to ride without bicycle-specific signing and pave- ment markings. Class III (Bike Routes) are Shared Roadways configured with pavement markings, signage and other treatments including directional signage. traffic diverters, chicanes, chokers and for other traffic calm- ing devices to reduce vehicle speeds or volumes. Such enhanced treatments are often associated with Bicycle Boulevards. 0 rte■ � . r � - M • ,y A Class 11 (Bike Lanes) use signage and striping to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and vehicle drivers. Bike lanes encourage predictable movements by both bicyclists and drivers. r9 y f. f, t- App8 aILI will �4:�H �, City of Temecula,California w Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIXETEMECULADRG Class IV(Cycle Tracks)are exclusive bicycle facilities that combine the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of conventional bike lanes.They may be one-or two-way. s. w L•r'e a - t u fi. s Y 4 � _ Class I(Multi-use Paths)are facilities separated from roadways for use primarily by bicyclists and pedes- trians, but also by other users. -Y 'w App9 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Shared Roadways On shared roadways,bicyclists and motor vehicles use the same roadway space. These facilities are typically on roadways with low speeds and traffic , volumes, but they can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside lanes or shoulders. A ve- hicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder is provided. Typical shared roadways often employ a variety ofpot , treatments, primarily signage and lane markings. Signed Shared Roadwa Bicycle boulevards are a special class of shared roadways designed for a broad spectrum of bicy- clists. They are low-volume local streets where drivers and bicyclists share the same travel lane- Bicycle boulevards treatments are selected as nec- tie essary to support appropriate vehicle volumes and = ! speeds and to provide safe crossing opportunities of busy streets. Bicycle boulevards usually employ more complex treatments than other shared road- ways,including traffic diverters,chicanes,chokers and other traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle Marked Shared •o• ■ speeds or volumes.See Pages 14-15 for examples. Ri 'It'W47ti Bicycle appout d App14 OURCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULAARG Signed Shared Roadway Description Guidance Class III facilities are generally located on roadways "BIKE RDUTE" -This sign (D11-1) is intended for with lower speeds and traffic volumes. Class III fa- use where no unique route designation is desired. cilities are designated as roadways with no striped However,when used alone,this sign conveys very bicycle lanes, but include signage to indicate the little information. Directional changes should be roadway is a bicycle route. Shared roadways can signed with appropriate arrow sub-plaques(D1-1 b) be used on higher volume roads with wide outside or directional signage. lanes or shoulders.A vehicle driver will usually have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass "BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE"(BMUFL)-This irw�_ a bicyclist, unless a wide outside lane or shoulder sign (R4-11) sign may be used: is provided. • On roadways without bicycle lanes or adjacent shoulders usable by cyclists and where travel " } lanes are too narrow for cyclists and motor vehicles to safely operate side-by-side • In locations where it is important to inform all road users that cyclists may occupy travel lane SHARE THE ROAD pfaque(Wf 6- 1p)may be used Fn conjunction with bicycle warning sign(W11-9) to warm drivers to watch for slower forms of transportation MUTCD D79-1 MAY USE RLAl3 FULL LANE Discussion Additional References and Guidelines A BICYCLE MAY USE FULL LANE sign(R4-11) AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- may be used on a lane too narrow for a bicycle cilities.2012. and an automobile to share the road side by California MUTCD.2014. side within the same lane). Materials and Maintenance Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic replacement due to wear and fading. App11 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Marked Shared Roadway Description Guidance The shared lane marking (SLM) or "Sharrow" is Shared lane markings may be considered in the commonly used where vehicle parking is provided following situations; adjacent to the travel lane. The marking center . On roadways with speeds of 40 mph or less should be located a minimum of 11 feet from the (CA MUTCD) curb face or roadway edge. If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel • On constrained roadways too narrow to stripe lane less than 14 feet wide, Shared Lane Marking with bicycle lanes centers should be at least four feet from the curb • To delineate space within wide Outside lane face, or from the pavement edge where there is where cyclists can be expected to ride no curb. (Note that these criteria are evolving and . On roadways where it is important to increase that it is now common practice to place SLMs in vehicle driver awareness of cyclists the center of the rightmost travel lane.) ■ On roadways where cyclists tend to ride too close to parked vehicles Mt1TCD D11-1 Minimum placement 11'from curb MAY USE FULL LANE - When placed adjacent to parking, SLMs should be outside moor zone" Placement in center of travel lane pre- ferred in constrained conditions R App12 l� Elul] City of Temecula,California•Mufti-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMEaCULA.aRG — ;rw , MUTCD D11_1 _ Minrrnurn placement 7 t"from curbCPO MAY USE FULL LANE rr' „ When placed adjacent to parking, SLMs should be outside "door zone Placement in center of travel lame pre- ferred In constrained conditions Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Bike lanes should be considered on roadways Caltrans HDM Chapter 300 with outside travel lanes wider than 15 feet, or California MUTCD 2014 where other lane narrowing or removal strate- NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014 gies may provide adequate road space. SLMs Model Design Manual of Living Streets, 2011 can not be used in shoulders, designated bike lames, ur to designate bicycle detection at sig- FHWA MUTCD. Interim Approval for Optional Use of nalized intersections. (MUTCD 9C.07) Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14) Materials and Maintenance Placing SLMs between vehicle tire tracks will increase marking life and minimize the long- term treatment costs. App13 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Bicycle Boulevard - Description Guidance Bicycle boulevards are low-volume, low-speed - Signs and pavement markings minimum treat- streets modified to enhance bicyclist comfort by ments necessary to designate a street as a using treatments such as signage,pavement mark- bicycle boulevard Ings, traffic calming and/or traffic reduction and - Bicycle boulevards should have maximum intersection modifications.These treatments allow posted speed of 25 mph through movements of bicyclists while discouraging - Employ traffic calming to maintain an 85th per- similar through-trips by non-local motorized traffic. centile speed below 22 mph • Implement volume control treatments based on bicycle boulevard context, using engineering judgment-Target motor vehicle volumes range from 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day Intersection crossings should be designed to enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists Shared lame markings are MUTCD-compliant and widely used to mark bicycle boulevards. Signs identify street as a bicycle priority route. MUTCD D11-1 Partial closures and other volume management fools limit the number of cars traveling on the bicycle boulevard. Enhanced Crossings: Use signals,beacons and roadway geometry to increase safety at major intersections. lop i App'14 !Aft" BullCity of Temecula,California,Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update RKEBIKETEWCULA-0W Curb Extensions: Mini Traffic Circles:Slow drivers Shorten pedestrian crossing distance. in advance of intersections. rt -a r Discussion Additional References and Guidelines The term"bicycle boulevard" implies a facility that Caltrans HDM Chapter 300 encourages bicycle usage while reducing motor California MUTCD 2014 vehicle volumes and/or speeds to a greater extent NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide,2014 than on a typical Class III route. Methods used may AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- include preferential treatment such as turn restric- cilities. 2012. tions,contra-flow access through one-way streets, exclusive traffic signal phases,or the reorientation FHWA Mini-Roundabouts.2010 of stop sign control to favor the bicycle boulevard. Traffic calming techniques may include curb exten- sions, chokers,traffic circles, roundabouts, speed humps, turn restrictions or barricades. Materials and Maintenance Vegetation should be regularly trimmed to maintain visibility and attractiveness. App15 Appendix A;Toolbox- Design Guidelines Separated Bikeways Desigrated exclusively for bicycle travel, separated bikeways are segregated from vehicle travel lanes by striping (Class II - Bicycle Lane), or physical measures such as bollards or curbs (Class IV - Cycle Tracks). Separated bikeways are most appropriate on arterial and collector streets where A_ higher traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater separation. Separated bikeways can increase safety and promote proper riding by: • Defining road space for bicyclists and drivers by reducing possibility that drivers will stray into bicyclists' path • Discouraging bicyclists from sidewalk riding • Reducing incidence of wrong way riding • Reminding drivers that bicyclists also have road rights '— B i je Lifin Ark Jbiibo LlParking L Bu4d Bicycle La '• 17 r' App16 UUMCity of Temecula,California a Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEWCUL0..ORG Bicycle Lane Description Guidance This facility provides an exclusive lane for one-way Provide five font minimum width for bicycle lanes bicycle travel on a street or highway,installed along located between parking and traffic lanes.Six feet streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle is desired. demand and where there are distinct needs that . Provide four foot minimum width if no gutter can be served by them. On streets with on-street exists. With normal two foot gutter, minimum parking, bicycle lanes are located between the bicycle lane width is five feet 1. parking area and the traffic lanes and used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. • 14.5 feet preferred from curb face to edge of bike lane t12 foot minimum) Many bicyclists, particularly less experienced rid- , Seven foot maximum width for use adjacent to ° ers,are more comfortable riding on a busy street if arterials with high travel speeds.Greater widths it has a striped and signed bikeway than if they are expected to share a lane with vehicles. may encourage motor vehicle use of bike lane When approaching an intersection with right turn only lanes,the bike lane should be transitioned to a through bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane. 4'whda fine or parking"Ts" R81(CA) w 6"white line •i. BIKE LAf4E _ r. = - 14.5'preferred Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Wider bicycle lanes are desirable in certain situa- AASHTQ Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facili- tions such as on higher speed arterials(45 mph+) ties, 2012 N where use of a wider bicycle lane would increase California MUTCD,2014 ' separation between passing vehicles and bicyclists. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide,2014 Consider buffered bicycle lanes when further sepa- Caltrans California HDM, 2012 ration is desired. Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas. - App17 Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Bicycle Lanes and Diagonal Parking Description Guidance The back-in/head-out parking is considered safer Based on existing dimensions from test sites and than conventional head-in/back-out parking due permanent facilities, provide 16 feel from curb edge to better visibility when leaving. This is particularly to inner bicycle lane stripe and a five foot bicycle lane. important on busy streets or where vehicle drivers may find their views blocked by large vehicles or tinted windows in adjacent vehicles.The presence of raised median islands helps prevent drivers from using a back-in stall for head-in parking. Back-in Diagonal Parking F, R81 (CA) *+y 2'buffer BIKE LANE Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Test the facility on streets with existing head-in Back-in/Head-out Angle Parking, Ne son/Nygaard angled parking and moderate to high bicycle traf- Consulting Associates, 2005 fic.Additional signs to direct vehicle driver in how City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan Update, City of the back-in angled parking works is recommended. Los Angeles Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas. App18 t DUE] City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKE TE MEC U LA,OR G Buffered Bicycle Large Description Parking Side or Curb Buffers Buffered bike lanes are defined in the Urban Bike- Parking or curb side buffers provide space between way Guide as"conventional bike lanes paired with the bicyclist and parked cars or gutter pan.This re- a buffered space separating the bike lane from the duces the potential for a bicyclist to strike a car door � adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking being opened by a driver ("dooring"), eliminates lane,"Buffered bike lanes are allowed per California use of the gutter pan as part of the bike lane, and 10 2014 MUTCD guidelines for buffered preferential moves the bicyclist out drivers'blind spots as they lanes (Section 3D-01). approach from side streets or driveways. Conventional bike lanes typically provide 5 to 6 Travel Side Buffer foot wide space between the curb and travel lane. Travel side buffers provide space between the However,many bicyclists are uncomfortable riding bicyclist and motor vehicles in the travel lane. this close to moving traffic particularly on higher High speed, high volume roadways make many speed and/or higher volume roadways. A recent bicyclists uncomfortable. Recent studies from the Portland State University study titled"Evaluation of Portland State University have shown that simple Innovative Bicycle Facilities,"shows that bicyclists buffer substantially increases most bicyclists'level feel a lower risk of being"floored"in a buffered bike of comfort. lane and nearly nine in ten bicyclists prefer buffered lanes to standard lanes. Seven in ten bicyclists Combined Side or Double Sided Buffer indicated they would go out of their way to ride on The combined side or double sided buffer offers the a buffered bike lane over a standard lane. advantage of guiding bicyclists away from the door The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design guides list zone while providing a perceived safer distance several advantages of buffered lanes including: between bicyclists and passing motor vehicles. • Providing "shy" distance between motor ve- hicles and bicyclists • Providing space for bicyclists to pass another bicyclist without encroaching into adjacent mo- Guidance for vehicle travel lane According to California MUTCD 2014 Section 3D, • Encouraging bicyclists to ride outside door buffered bike lanes are considered "allowable" zone when buffer is between parked cars and treatments. Signage and dimensional guidelines bike lane are the same as for Class II bicycle lanes.Additional • Providing greater space for bicycling without guidance is included in the NACTO Urban Bikeway making bike lane appear so wide that it might Design Guide: be mistaken for travel or parking lane • Use bike lane word and/or symbol (MUTCD • Appealing to wider cross-section of bicycle users Figure 9C-3) • Encouraging bicycling by contributing to per- • Use interior diagonal cross hatching or chevron ception of safety among bicycle network users markings for buffers three feet in width or wider • Mark buffer with two white lines based on There are three types of buffers. California MUTCD 2014 standards. Section • Parking or side or curb buffer 3D,01 says that for bicyclists to be allowed • Travel lane side buffer to cross double white line, it must be dashed ` (same as standards applied to buffered HOV • Combined side or double buffer lanes).Therefore,inside line should be dashed instead of solid. • Buffers should be at least 24 inches wide App19 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Color may be used at beginning of each Parking side buffer to discourage block to discourage drivers from enter- riding;n"door zone" ing buffered lane r 0 MD BIKE LANE a- Travel side(left)and parking side(right)buffers Discussion Additional References and Guidelines i Add diagonal striping on the outer buffer adjacent NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide,2014 to the traffic lanes every 10 feet. However longitu- CA MUTCD, 2014 dinal spacing should be determined by engineering judgment considering factors such as speed and desired visual impacts. • On-street parking remains adjacent to curb • Travel lane may need to be eliminated or nar- rowed to accommodate buffers Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas. s �+ G r, App20 OURCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIXEGRLETEMECUMORG Cycle Track Description Cycle tracks, which were recently officially desig- This facility type has been shown to be effective in nated as Class IV bikeway facilities in California, increasing the number of bicyclists using the street, are an exclusive bike facility that combines the user increasing safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and experience of a separated path with the on-street drivers and increasing access to local businesses infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. Cycle (Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Pro- tracks are physically separated from motor traffic tected Bike Lanes in the US, National Institute for - and distinct from the sidewalk. They differ from Transportation and Communities, 2014). buffered lanes in that the bicyclist is separated from travel lanes by a physical barrier. Separated bikeways can increase safety and pro- mote proper riding by: Cycle tracks have different forms but all share . Defining road space for bicyclists and drivers, common elements.They provide space exclusively reducing possibility that drivers will stray into used by bicyclists and are separated from motor bicyclists'path vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes and sidewalks. Cycle tracks may be raised to the adjacent sidewalk • Discouraging bicyclists from sidewalk riding level or set at an intermediate level between the • One-way cycle tracks can be either conven- roadway and sidewalk to separate the cycle track tional flow (same direction as adjacent traffic) from the pedestrian area. or contra-flow (opposite direction of adjacent traffic flow) R81 (CR) 1311[E �LAltE -r Y buffer preferred - -z Locate cycle track between Cycle track can be raised parking lane and sidewalk ar at street leve! Guidance One-Way Cycle Tracks Cycle tracks should ideally be placed along streets NACTO Guidelines recommend a seven foot mini- I� with long blocks and few driveways or mid-block mum to allow passing and five foot minimum width motor vehicle access points. in constrained locations. Note: In accordance with AB-1193,the local agency must pass a resolution to adopt NACTO Guidelines in lieu of Caltrans Highway Design Manual if one-way cycle track width is less than nine feet. App2l Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Two-Way Cycle Tracks • Cycle tracks located on one-way streets have fewer potential conflict areas than those on two-way streets • 12 foot recommended minimum for two-way facility,eight foot minimum in constrained loca- tions (Note. In accordance with Ata-1193, local agency must pass resolution to adopt NACTO Guidelines in lieu of Caltrans Highway Design Manual for two-way cycle tracks less than 12 feet wide) R61(CA) Alk. Alt[€ LAttE 'Y tj Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Special consideration should be given at transit NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide.2014 stops to manage bicycle and pedestrian interac- Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected tions. Driveways and minor street crossings are Bike Lanes in the US, National Institute for Trans- unique challenges to cycle track design. Parking portation and Communities,2014 should be prohibited within 30 feet of the intersec- tion to improve visibility. Materials and Maintenance Depending on the width, barrier-separated and raised cycle tracks may require smaller sweeping equipment. App22 Bullcity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULADRG Separated Bikeways at Intersections Intersections are junctions at which different WO modes of transportation meet and facilities overlap. Intersection facilitate the interchange ' between bicyclists, drivers, pedestrians and other modes to advance traffic flow in a safe and efficient manner. Designs for intersections with bicycle facilities should reduce conflict between bicyclists(and other vulnerable road users) and ike Box vehicles by heightening the level of visibility, - denoting clear right-of-way and facilitating eye contact and awareness with other modes. = - Intersection treatments can improve both queu- ing and merging maneuvers for bicyclists and ' are often coordinated with timed or specialized signals. The configuration of a safe intersection for bicyclists may include elements such as color, Bike signage,medians,signal detection and pavement -Canes and Right Turn Only Lanes markings. F loop=- Intersection design should take into consideration existing and anticipated bicyclist,pedestrian and - driver movements. In all cases, the degree of - mixing or separation between bicyclists and other modes is intended to reduce the risk of crashes and increase bicyclist comfort.The level of treat- ment required for bicyclists at an intersection will depend on the'bicycle facility type used,whether bicycle facilities are intersecting and the adjacent street function and land use. .. Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane Intersection Crossing Markings I � l T + i App23 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Bike Box Description Guidance A bike box is a designated area located at the head Bike poxes are currently experimental treatments. of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that pro- Obtaining approval is a 4-6 week process and vides bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get reatment evaluation is performed for a minimum in front of queuing motorized traffic during the red of one year. signal phase. Motor vehicles must queue behind . 10-16toot depth (Deeper boxes help to prevent the white stop line at the rear of the bike box. motor vehicles encroachment) 1k • "STOP HERE ON RED" sign should be post- mounted at stop line to reinforce stop line observance • "YIELD TO BIKES"sign should ne past-mounted in advance of and in conjunction with egress lane to reinforce that bicyclists have right-of-way going through intersection • Ingress lane should be used to provide access to Dike box • Supplemental "WAIT HERE" legend can be provided in advance of stop bar to increase clarity for drivers May be combined with intersection • Requires permission to experiment from Fed- crossing markings and colored bike era l Highway Administration lanes in conflict areas 1 � TURNING Of , pavement s veHIC4£s can tae use within bike ox fer increase nisi ility TO eyes AND ' _ ���PEUESTRG4HS J>F"RIO-15 variant ;r. Wid sto lin used '." for incre s d visifullty �q !f+used,colored . S _P pavement should extend HERE ON 50'Irvna the intersect. - I RED Discussion Materials and Maintenance Bike ooxes should be placed only at signalized Because the effectiveness of markings depends = intersections and motor vehicle right turns on red entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings shall oe prohibited. Bike boxes should be used in should be a high priority. locations that have a large volume of bicyclists and are best utilized in central areas where traffic Additional References and Guidelines is usually moving more slowly. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. FHWA MUTCD. Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes and Interim Approval (IA-14}. 2011. App24 13,813 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEMETEMECUL&ORG Bike Lanes at Right Turn Only Lanes r Description Guidance The appropriate treatment at right-turn lanes is to At auxiliary right turn only lanes (add lane): place the bike lane between the right-turn lane and . Continue existing bike lane width;standard width the right-most through lane or, where right-of-way of 5 to 6 feet(4 feet in constrained locations) is insufficient, to use a shared bike lane/turn lane. The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, • Use signage to indicate that drivers should yield with signage indicating that drivers should yield to to bicyclists through conflict area bicyclists through the conflict area. • Consider using colored conflict areas to pro- mote mixing zone visibility Where through lane becomes right turn lane: • Do not define dotted line merging path for bicyclists • Drop bicycle lane in advance of merge area Colored pavement may be used in transition area to increase visibility and • Use shared lane markings to indicate shared potential conflict awareness. use of lane in merging zone _ rlrert sEerr+ y OF JUM LUE YIELD i0 9IKL4 C7ptkh dAtt lin s MuTCQ 1`24-4 (o�t�onaJ) Discussion Additional References and Guidelines For other potential approaches to providing accom- AASHTD. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- modations for bicyclists at intersections with turn cilities.2012. lanes, please see combined bike lanelturn lane, California MUTCD.2014. bicycle signals and colored bike facilities. NACTG. Urban Bikeway Design Guide.2014. Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. Materials and Maintenance Caltrans. Complete intersections.2010. Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. . App25 Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Colored Bike Lanes in Conflict Areas Description The Federal Highway Administrative (FHWA) has Local agencies have adopted different philoso- granted the State of California approval for optional phies on the usage of green colored pavement, use of green colored pavement in marked bicycle Some agencies use green colored pavement only lanes and in extensions of bicycle lanes through in- for Class II lanes where bicyclists have exclusive tersections and other traffic conflict areas. It should use and leave the conflict zones uncolored. Other be noted that the green colored pavement as de- agencies use the green colored pavement only in scribed under this approval is used for two different conflict zones, such as the weave shown in the situations: figure below. • To denote lane exclusively for bicyclists To advise drivers and bicyclists that they are sharing pavement and should be aware of each other's presence Intl MUrco R4-4 (optional) !t8 dOtt d edge WIN lin s shoutd define RIO[MRM WE c tared space rlEru ra alKrs :y MUTCD R4-4 (optional) �•F .T f GEM BEGIN White doffs clge ;�I��r r�Rk ELME _��� lures should derine rIEt6 ria elKfs colored sp ce t.+ .. App26 UjIM City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HINEBIKETEMECULA.ORG Guidance Additional References and Guidelines Jurisdictions must notify Caltrans where the treat- AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- ment is being installed as part of FHWNs conditions cilities.2012. to maintain an inventory list. California MUTCD, 2014 At auxiliary right turn only lanes (add lane): NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide.2014. • Continue existing bike lane width;standard width Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. of 5 to 6 feet(4 feet in constrained locations) Caltrans.Complete Intersections. 2010. • Use signage to indicate that drivers should yield to bicyclists through conflict area • Consider using colored conflict areas to pro- mote mixing zone visibility Where through lane becomes right turn lane. • Do not define dotted line merging path for bicyclists • Drop bicycle lane in advance of merge area • Use shared lane markings to indicate shared use of lane in merging zone Discussion The best practices for green colored pavement are still evolving. As of this date, more agencies use green colored pavement for conflict zones than for exclusive bicyclist lanes.The amount of green paint used by such agencies varies dramatically. Some agencies fill the entire conflict zone with solid green paint, while others use a pattern of green stripes. Some agencies use green colored pavement across every driveway, alley and cross streets, while others reserve the use of green colored pave- ment for conflict zones that merit special attention. The precise design of green colored pavement remains at local agency discretion. It should be noted that combing a shared lane mark- ing ("sharrow") within green colored pavement is no longer approved for new experimentation by the FHWA.However,the FHWA may accept for experi- mentation the use of green colored pavement as a "background conspicuity enhancement." Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. App27 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane Description Guidance The combined bicycleiright turn lane places a stan- The FHWA has disallowed the experimental use dard-width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated of combined bike lane/turn lane markings.Previ- right turn lane.Adotted line delineates the space for ously, installations were as follows: bicyclists and drivers within the shared lane. This treatment includes signage advising drivers and Maximum shared turn lane width is 13 feet; nar- bicyclists of proper positioning within the lane.This rower is preferable. treatment is recommended at intersections lacking - Bike lane pocket should have minimum width sufficient space to accommodate both a standard of four feet with five feet preferred through bike lane and right turn lane. . Dotted four inch line and bicycle lane marking should be used to clarify bicyclist positioning within combined lane,without excluding driv- ers from suggested bicycle area • "RIGHT TURN ONLY"sign with"EXCEPT BI- CYCLES"plaque may be needed for through bicyclists to legally use right turn lane Short length turn pockets encour- age slower motor vehicle speeds. ONLY IMF1R44 BEGIN IILN1 f�RK LANE YIELD 110 WES Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Unless the FHWA resumes granting permission to NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. experiment with a combined bike lane/turn lane, AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- this treatment will not be recommended. cilities. 2412. Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of markings depends on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. r. App28 } City of Temecula, California•Mufti-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update H IKEBI It E T E MEC U LA.0 RG Intersection Crossing Markings Description Guidance Bicycle pavement markings through intersections • See MUTCD Section 3B.08,"dotted line extensions" indicate the intended path of bicyclists through an • Grossing striping shall be at least six inches wide intersection or across a driveway or ramp. They when adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes guide bicyclists on a safe and direct path through the . Dotted lines should be two foot line segments intersection and provide a clear boundary between spaced two to six feet apart the paths of through bicyclists and either through or crossing motor vehicles in the adjacent lane. • Chevrons, shared lane markings, or colored bike lanes in conflict areas may be used to in- crease visibility within conflict areas or across entire intersections Elephant's Shared Colored Feet m Lane Conflict Elephant's Conflict Chevrons Markings Zones Feet Areas 2'stripe -6'ga• _ •� � Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Additional markings such as chevrons, shared AASHTC. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- lane markings, or colored bike lanes in con- cilities. 2012. flirt areas are strategies currently in use in the California MUTCD. 2014. United States and Canada. Cities considering NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. the implementation of markings through intersec- tions should standardize future designs to avoid confusion. Materials and Maintenance Because the effectiveness of marked crossings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining marked crossings should be a high priority. App29 Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Two-Stage Turn Box Description Guidance Marcy bicyclists are reluctant to cross traffic lanes • Two-stage turn box to facilitate jughandle turn at to turn left. Two-stage turn boxes offer bicyclists a T-intersection allowed in Federal and California safe way to make left turns at multi-lane signalized MUTCD.Two-stage turn box for use other than intersections from a right side cycle track or bike for jughandle turn atT-intersection considered lane. Bicyclists continue straight while the traffic experimental signal displays green for the original direction of Required design elements include bicycle sym- travel during the first stage of a traffic signal and bol pavement marking, paverrent marking turn then wait for the second stage when the cross street or through arrow, full-time turn on red prohibi- receives a green light to complete the move. tion for cross street, and passive detection of bicycles if signal phase that permits bicyclists to enter intersection during second stage of their turn is actuated • Green colored pavement optional Discussion While two stage turns may increase bicyclist com- fort in many locations, it results i-i higher average Turns from a bicycle lane may be protected by an signal delay for bicyclists versus a vehicular style adjacent parking lane or crosswalk setback space. left turn maneuver. Materials and Maintenance Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Additional References and Guidelines ,t NACTa. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. Turns from t}iC IB lane m y 6e pr tested by parkr'ng fens or ether physics!buffer App30 W"MUM City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBBIKKETEMEe ut.a.osa Bike Lanes at Diverging Ramp Lanes Description Guidance Some arterials may include high speed freeway- Entrance Ramps: style design, such as merge lanes and exit ramps, Angle bike lane to increase approach angle with which can create difficulties for bicyclists. These entering traffic.Position crossing to draw drivers'at- entrance and exit lanes typically have intrinsic vis- tention prior to being focused on upcoming merge. ibility problems because of low approach angles and high speed differentials between bicyclists and Exit Ramps: y motor vehicles. Strategies to improve safety focus Use a jughandle turn to increase bicyclists ap- on increasing sight distances,creating formal cross- proach angle with exiting traffic and add yield strip- ings and minimizing crossing distances. ing and signage to the bicycle approach. Crossing should be located prior to Y YIELD where drivers'attention becomes focused on upcoming merge. Colored pavement within bicycle lane increases facility visibility and reinforces bicyclisfs'priority m conflict areas. MUMMY �. J CiW19-9 - W11-1-'� - � Sign W'� WV YIELD TO BIKE BIKES BIKE XING L XING Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Green colored pavement is optional, California MUTG D.2014. AASHTO. Guide for the[Development of Bicycle Fa- 10 cilities.2012. Materials and Maintenance Caltrans.Complete Intersections. 2090. Paint can wear more quickly in high traffic areas or in winter climates. Locate crossing markings out of wheel tread when possible to minimize wear and maintenance costs. Appal Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Freeway Interchange Design Description Guidance Freeway Interchanges can be significant obstacles Entrance Ramps: to bicycling if they are poorly designed. Travel . Rig-it-turn lane should be configured with taper as through some interchange designs may be par- "add-lane" for drivers turning right onto freeway ticularly challenging for youth bicyclists. Key design entrance ramp features at conflict areas through interchanges . Bike lane should be provided along left side of should be included to improve the experience for bicyclists. right turn lane • Dotted through bike lane striping provides clear priority for bicyclists at right turn "add lane" on-ramps Exit Ramps: • Drivers existing freeway and turning onto cross- road should be controlled by stop sign, signal or yield sign, rather than allowing free flowing movement Discussion The on-ramps should be configured as a right-turn- only "add lane" to assert through bicyclist priority. Designs that function for bicycle passage typically encourage slowing or require motor vehicle traffic to slow or stop. Designs that encourage high- speed traffic movements are difficult for bicyclists to negotiate. Materials and Maintenance Locate crossing markings out of wheel tread when possib e to minimize wear and ma ntenance costs. Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- cilities.2012. " California MUTCD. 2044 . Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2014. App32 gullCity of Temecula,California-Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HWEBIKETEMECULA.oRG Signalization Determining which type of signal or beacon to use for a particular intersection depends on a variety of factors. These include speed limits, Average Daily Traffic (ADT), anticipated bicycle crossing traffic and the configuration of planned or existing bicycle facilities.Signals may be necessary as part of protected bicycle facility construction, such as a cycle track with potential turning conflicts, or to decrease vehicle or pedestrian conflicts at major crossings.An intersection with bicycle signals may reduce stress and delays for a crossing bicyclist and Bicycle DetectioldActuation discourage illegal and unsafe crossing maneuvers. r App33 Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Bicycle Detection and Actuation Loop Detectors or Video Detectors Discussion For signalized intersectinn movements that do Bicycle detection should meet two primary criteriai not normally receive a green light unless actu- . Accurately detect bicyclists ated by a car or pedestrian, the California Vehicle Code requires installation of detectors capable of • Provide clear guidance to bicyclists on how to detecting bicyclists at the limit fine. This is most actuate detection (e.g., what button to push, commonly done with either inductive loop detectors where to stand) or video detection. Traffic actuated signals should Requirement for bicycle detection at all new and be sensitive to bicycles, should be located in the bicyclist's expected path and stenciling should di- modified approaches to traffic signals is included rect the bicyclist to the point where the bicycle will in 2014 California MIJTC�. be detected. This allows the bicyclist to stay within the travel lane without having to maneuver to the side of the road to trigger a push button. Materials and Maintenance Signal detection and actuation for bicyclists should Push Button Actuation be maintained with other traffic signal detection and A bicyclist pushbutton may be used to supplement roadway pavement markings. the required limit line detectors. These buttons should be mounted in a location that permits their activation by a bicyclist without having to dismount. Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor Detec- Additional References and Guidelines Fa- tion iRTMS) AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- cilities. 2012. RTMS is a system which uses frequency modulated NACTD, Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. continuous wave radio signals to detect objects in the roadway. This method marks the detected California MUTCD. 2014, object with a time code to determine its distance Caltrars. Policy Directive 09-06. 2009, from the sensor.The RTMS system is unaffected by Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010. temperature and lighting,which can affect standard video detection. Bicycle detectorpavement markrrr ush button ctrvatrCn fMM?"CJ Figur 9C-7J WA Bicycle detector pavement ma ing App34 0913 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan'Update HMINETEMECULA-0K Bicycle Signal Heads Description Guidance The California MUTCD authorizes the use of California MUTCD Bicycle Signal Warrant is based bicycle signal heads only at locations that meet off bicyclist volumes,collision history,or geometric Caltrans Bicycle Signal Warrants. FHWXs Interim warrants: Approval IA-16 specifies a more detailed application . Those with high peak hour bicyclist volumes of bicycle signal indications. Bicycle signal heads may be used for a movement not in conflict with . Those with high bicycle/motor vehicle collision any simultaneous motor vehicle movements at a numbers, especially those caused by turning signalized intersection, including right or left turns vehicle movements on red.The bicycle movement may not be modified - Where multi-use path intersects roadway - ► ,4 by lane-use signs,turn prohibition signs,pavement . At locations to facilitate bicycle movement not markings,separate turn signal indications,or other permitted for motor vehicle traffic control devices. Bicycle signals must utilize appropriate detec- The signal lens size may be 4 inches, 8 inches, or tion and actuation 12 inches, with 4 inch lens size reserved only for supplemental near-side mountings. Discussion Additional References and Guidelines For improved visibility, smaller(4 inch lens) near- FHWA Interim Approval IA-16.20'11 side bicycle signals should be considered to supple- California MUTCD. 2014. ment far-side signals. Materials and Maintenance Bicycle signal heads require the same maintenance as standard traffic signal heads, such as lamp re- placement and responding to power outages. f NV �y 6 ON RED Nis 1 App35 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Active Warning Beacons Description Guidance Active warning beacons are user actuated ihumi- Warning beacons shall not be used at crosswalks con- nated devices designed to increase motor vehicle trolled by YIELD signs,. STOP signs or traffic signals. yielding compliance at crossings of multi lane or Warning beacons initiate operation based on high volume roadways.Types of active warning bea- pedestrian or bicyclist actuation and cease cons include conventional circular yellow flashing operation at predetermined time after actuation beacons, in roadway warning lights,or Rectangular or, with passive detection, after pedestrian or Rapid Flash Beacons(RRFB). RRFBs have blanket bicyclist clears crosswalk approval in California per FHWA MUTCD IA11. Providing secondary Median refuge islands provide Rectangular Rapid Flash installations of RRFBs on added comfort and should be Beacons(RRFB)dramatically median islands improves angled to direct users to face increase compliance over con- driver yielding behavicr oncoming traffic- ventiornal warning beacons. I 15 , .: v • 'R Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Rectangular rapid flash beacons have the highest NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. compliance of all warning beacon enhancement California MUTCD. 2014. options.The effectiveness of a two-beacon RRFB FHWA. Interim Approval (IA-11). 2008. installation has been shown to increase yielding Caltrars. Complete Intersections. 2010. from 18 percent to 81 percent compared to a no- beacon arrangement.A four-beacon arrangement raised compliance to 88 percent. Materials and Maintenance Depending on power supply, maintenance can be minimal. Solar-powered RRFBs can operate for years without issue. App3B 0913 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Traits and Bikeways Master Plan Update WIKEBIKEAMECULAARG Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Description Guidance A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), previously Pedestrian hybrid beacons may be installed with- known as a high-intensity activated crosswalk out meeting traffic signal control warrants. Meed (HAWK), consists of a signal head with two red should be considered on the basis of engineering lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street study that considers speed, major-street volumes and pedestrian and/or bicycle signal heads for the and gaps. minor street. There are no signal indications for If installed within signal system, signal engi- ti motor vehicles on the minor street approaches. neers should evaluate need for PHB to be -" Pedestrian hybrid beacons are used to improve coordinated with other signals non-motorized crossings of major streets in loca- • Parking and other sight obstructions should be tions where side-street volumes do not support prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of installation of a conventional traffic signal or where and at least 20 feet beyond marked crosswalk there are concerns that a conventional signal will encourage additional motor vehicle traffic on the minor street. Hybrid beacons may also be used at mid-block crossing locations. r w11-15 May be paired with bicycle signal W163-7f' head to clarify bicycle movement ! Discussion Additional References and Guidelines An alternative to a pedestrian hybrid beacon is a California MUTCD.2014. standard signal face that displays a flashing red i indication during the pedestrian clearance phase. The advantage of a standard signal face is that it displays no dark indications that could be inter- preted by a driver to be a symptom of a power outage that requires coming to a stop. Materials and Maintenance Signing and striping need to be maintained to help users understand any unfamiliar traffic control. App3T Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Retrofitting Existing Streets to Accommodate Bikeways Most major streets are characterized by high vehicle speeds and/or volumes for which dedi- cated bike lanes are the most appropriate facility to accommodate safe and comfortable riding. MUM Although opportunities to add bike lanes through _Tl roadway widening may exist in some locations, many major streets have physical and other conIF - straints that would require street retrofit measures within existing curb-to-curb widths. As a result, much of this section's guidance focuses on ef- fectively reallocating existing streetwidth through striping modifications to accommodate dedicated owing bike lanes. ARthough largely intended for major streets,these measures may be appropriate for any roadway trr where bike lanes would be the best accommoda- tion for bicyclists. I.40 12 . j4 Y w . •l M App38 MENCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update MKESIKETEMECULA.ORG Lane Narrowing ("Lane Diet") Description Guidance Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that ex- Vehicle Lane Width ceeds minimum standards to provide the needed - Before: 10-15 feet space for bike lanes.Many roadways have existing . After. 10-11 feet travel lanes wider than those prescribed in local and national roadway design standards, or which Bicycle Lane Width are not marked. Most standards allow for the use • Bicycle lane guidance applies to this treatment `s of 11 foot and sometimes 10 foot wide travel lanes to create space for bike lanes. - Before t 24'TravellParking Lane After r l+ T Travel- 8'Bike 8'Parking { Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Special consideration should be given to the AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- amount of Heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal cur- cilities. 2012. vature before the decision is made to narrow travel AASHTO.A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in and Streets.2004. certain situations to provide space for bike lanes. Caltrans. California HDM.2012. Caltrans. Main Streets. 2005. Materials and Maintenance Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. App33 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Lane Reconfiguration ("Road Diet") -- Description Guidance The removal of a single travel lane will generally Width depends on project. No narrowing may he provide sufficient space for hike lanes on both sides needed if a lane is removed. of a street. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for bike lane retrofits. Bicycle lane width: • Bicycle lane guidance applies to this treatment Before F 11-12'Travel 11'Travel After Ow 10-12'Tum 10-12' 6'Bike Travel Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Depending on a street's existing configuration, AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- traffic operations,user needs and safety concerns, cilities.2012. various lane reduction configurations may apply. FHWA. Evaluation of Lane Reduction"Road Diet" For instance, a four-lane street (with two travel Measures on Crashes.2010. lanes in each direction)could be modified to provide Caltrans.Main Streets.2005. one travel lane in each direction,a center turn lane and bike lanes. Materials and Maintenance Repair rough or uneven pavement surface. o. App40 I! HOTM 'F E City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Traits and Bikeways Master Plan Update HVC WKETEMECULA.ORG Shared Use Path Shared-use paths allow for two-way, off-street bicycle use and also may be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users,joggers and other non- motorized users. These facilities are frequently found in parks,along rivers,beaches and in green- belts or utility corridors where there are few conflicts i with motorized vehicles. Path facilities can also include amenities such as lighting, signage and fencing (where appropriate). Key features of greenways include: 1W WIVW"' • Frequent access points from local road network Ilk • Directional signs to direct users to and frommpath • Limited number of at-grade crossings with streets or driveways • Terminating path where easily accessible to and from local road network ; L,Wivera Utility Corridors • Separate treads for pedestrians and bicyclists - when heavy use expected • App41 -- Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines General Design Practices Description Guidance Shared-use paths can provide a desirable facility, Width particularly for recreation and for users of all skill • 9 feet minimum allowed by HDM for one-way levels preferring separation from traffic. Paths Class I multi-use path consisting of five foot should generally provide directional travel oppor- paved width with two foot shoulders tunities not provided by existing roadways. . 12 feet minimum allowed by HDM for two-way Class I multi-use path consisting of two four Discussion foot lanes and two foot shoulders AASHTO Guide for the development of Bicycle • On structures,Class I multi-use path clear width Facilities generally recommends against develop- between railings not less than 10 feet ment of shared use paths along roadways. Lateral Clearance • Minimum separation between edge of pave- Materials and Maintenance ment of one-way or two-way multi-use path and edge of travel way of parallel road or street five Asphalt is the most common surface for Class I feet plus standard shoulder width. paths,but concrete has proven to be more durable _ over the long term. Overhead Clearance • Minimum vertical clearance allowed by HDM to obstructions across width of multi-use path eight feet and seven feet over shoulders Striping Additional References and Guidelines • When striping required, use four inch dashed .F,•..+� AASHTO.Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- yellow centerline stripe with four inch solid white cilities.2012. edge lines California MUTCD.2014. Provide solid centerlines at tight or blind comers Caltrans. California HDM.2012. and on roadway crossing approaches W4�All 4• i y ^� f i ppp4 � - .. a ® City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEWI(ETEMECULA.aRG Paths in River and Utility Corridors Description Guidance Utility and walerway corridors often offer excellent Shared-use paths in utility corridors should meet or shared-use path development and bikeway gap clo- exceed general design practices and must conform sure opportunities.Utility corridors typically include to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual if desig- power line and sewer corridors, while waterway nated as a Class I multi-use path.If additional width corridors include canals, drainage ditches, rivers allows,wider paths and landscaping are desirable.. and beaches.These corridors offer excellent trans- portation and recreation opportunities for bicyclists Access Points of all ages and skills. Any access point to the path should be well-defined with appropriate signage designating the pathway as a bicycle and pedestrian facility and prohibiting motor vehicles. I' � Discussion Path Closure Similar to railroads, public access to flood control Public access to the path may be prohibited during channels or canals is undesirable by all parties. the following events: Appropriate fencing may be required to keep path . Canal/flood control channel or other utility main- users within the designated travel way. Creative tenance activities design of fencing is encouraged to make the path facility feel welcoming to the user. • Predicted incitement weather or storm conditions Materials and Maintenance Additional References and Guidelines For paths susceptible to flooding or ponding, per- AASHTO.Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- meable pavement is an option to reduce water cilities. 2012. collection, but will require additional regular main- California MUTCD.2014. tenance to maintain effectiveness. Flink,C.Greenways. 1993. _ a. r 1 r App43 Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Local Neighborhood Accessways Description Guidance Neighoorhood accessways provide residential • Neighborhood access should be public areas with direct bicycle and pedestrian access to • Trail pavement should be at least 8 feet wide parks, trails, green spaces and other recreational to accommodate emergency and maintenance areas.They most often serve as small trail connec- vehicles, meet ADA requirements and be con- tions to and from the larger trail network, typically sidered suitable for multi-use having their own rights-of-way and easements. . Trail widths should be designed to be less than Additionally,these smaller trails can be used to pro- 8 feet wide onlywhen necessary to protect large vide b cycle and pedestrian connections between mature native trees over 18 inches in caliper, dead-end streets,cul-de-saes and access to nearby wetlands or other ecologically sensitive areas destinations not provided by the street network. • Access trails should slightly meander whenever possible to take advantage of available right- of-way space 8'urrde concrete access fra�n street(Minirrum 5' ADA access' _ J _ 8.wide asphalt or concrete trail - Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Neighborhood access should be designed into new AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- subdivisions wherever possible. cilities. 2012. - California MUTCD. 2014. Materials and Maintenance For paths susceptible to flooding or ponding, per- meable pavement is an option to reduce water collection, but will require additional regular main- tenance to maintain effectiveness. App44 may. City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECU LA.ORG Path/Roadway Crossing At-grade roadway crossings can create potential conflicts between path users and drivers, but well- designed crossings can rnitigaLe niany operational " issues and provide a higher degree of safety and comfort for path users. This is evidenced by the + thousands of successful facilities around the United States with at-grade crossings. In most cases, at- grade path crossings can be properly designed to provide a reasonable degree of safety and can { r' meet existing traffic and safety standards. Path facilities that cater to bicyclists require addi- tional considerations due to the higher travel speed �rl Y of bicyclists versus pedestrians. In addition to guid- ance presented in this section,see previous entries for active warning beacons and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs)for other methods for enhancing trail crossings. i1 L!t s . App45 Appendix A.Toolbox- Design Guidelines MarkedlUnsignalized Mid block Crossings -� Description Guidance Marked/unsignalized mid black crossings typically Maximum traffic volumes consist of a marked crossing area, signage and • <9,000-12,000 Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volume other markings to slow or stop traffic. Designing . Up to 15,000ADTon two-lane roads,preferably crossings at mid-block locations depends on an with a median evaluation of vehicular traffic, line of sight, pathway traffic, use patterns, vehicle speed, road type, road ` Up to 12;000 ADT on four-lane roads with median width and other safety issues such as proximity to ► Maximum travel speed: 35 mph major attractions. Minimum line of sight When space is available, using a median refuge . 25 mph zone: 155 feet island can improve user safety by providing pedes- trians and bicyclists space to safely cross half the - 35 mph zone: 250 feet roadway at a time. • 45 mph zone: 360 feet W11-15, Crosswalk mark- Curves in path approaches help W1 6_9P petectable warning strips ings legally establish slow path users and make them help visually impaired mid-block pedestrian aware of oncoming vehicles. identify edge of street. crossing. If used, curb ramp should be full path width. 1 h y � _ y Car+Sider a median firge island when space is availahfe - Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Unsignalized crossings of multi-lane arterials over AA5HTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- 15,000 ADT may be possible with features such as cilities. 2412 sufficient crossing gaps (more than 60 per hour), California MUTCD. 2014 median refuges and/or active warning devices like Caltrans. California HDM. 2012 rectangular rapid flash beacons. Materials and Maintenance Locate markings out of wheel tread when possible owl to minimize wear and maintenance costs. App46 mrCM i r City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update Ll HINENKETEMECUMORG Qvercrossings Description Guidance Bicycle/pedestrian overcrossings provide critical - 10 foot minimum width between railings, 14 non-motorized system links by joining areas sepa- feet preferred rated by barriers such as deep canyons,waterways • Overcrossing with scenic vistas should pro- or major transportation corridors. In most cases, vide additional width to allow for stopping these structures are built in response to user de- . Separate five foot pedestrian area may be mand for safe crossings where they previously did provided for facilities with high bicycle and not exist. pedestrian use Grade-separated crossings may be needed where • 10 foot headroom on overcrossing;clearance existing bicycle/pedestrian crossings do not exist, below will vary depending on feature being where ADT exceeds 25,000 vehicles and where crossed 85th percentile speeds exceed 45 miles per hour. . Roadway: 17 feet . Freeway: 18.5 feet ' Heavy Rail Line: 23 feet } 1 Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Overcrossings for bicycles and pedestrians typi- AASHTO.Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- tally fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act cilities.2012. (ADA),which strictly limits ramp slopes to 8.33 per- AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design and Opera- cent (1:12) with landings every 30 feet. California tion of Pedestrian Facilities. 2004. Code of Regulations Title 24 requires gradients up to five percent(1:20)with five foot landings at 400 foot intervals. Materials and Maintenance Potential vandalism may be addressed with sacri- ficial coatings. App47 Appendix A;Toolbox- design Guidelines Signalized Crossings Description Guidance Path crossings within approximately 300 feet of Mid block crosswalks shall not be signalized if they an existing signalized intersection with pedestrian are located within 300 feet of the nearest traffic crosswalks are typically diverted to the signalized control signal and should not be controlled by a intersection to avoid traffic operation problems traffic control signal if the crosswalk is located within when located so close to an existing signal. For 100 feet from side streets or driveways controlled this restriction to be effective, barriers and signing by STOP signs or YIELD signs. It possible, offset may be needed to direct path users to the signal- the path to the intersection. ized crossing. If no pedestrian crossing exists at the signal, modifications should be made. Wlaereverpossible;•-•affse[p th to lnterseCiiarl Discussion Additional References and Guidelines In the US, the minimum distance a marked cross- AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- ing can be from an existing signalized intersection cilities. 2012 varies from approximately 250 to 660 feet. Engi- AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design and Opera- neering judgment and location context should be tion of Pedestrian Facilities.2004 taken into account when choosing the appropriate California MUTCD. 2014. allowable setback. Materials and Maintenance If a sidewalk is used for crossing access, it should meet ADA guidelines. App48 DUMCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update WEBINETEMECULA.ORG Bicycle Support Facilities ' Bicycle Parking Bicyclists expect a safe,convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination.This may be short-term parking of two hours or less, or long-term parking for employees, students, resi- dents or commuters. Access to Transit Safe and easy access to bicycle parking facilities '_ ! is necessary to encourage commuters to access transit via bicycle. Providing bicycle access to r transit and space for bicycles on buses and rail vehicles can increase the feasibility of transit in fr lower-density areas,where transit stops are beyond walking distance of many residences. People are often willing to walk only a quarter-to half-mile to a bus stop, but they may bike as much as two or more miles to reach a transit station. On-Street M �1110 WA i+ po Secure I V i r r Are App49 Appendix A.Toolbox-Design Guidelines Bicycle Racks Description Guidance Secure bicycle parking at likely destinations is Acceptable racks: an integral part of a bikeway network. Adequate . Do not bend wheels or damage other bicycle parts bicycle parking should be incorporated into any new development or redevelopment project. Bi- ' Accommodate high security U-locks cycle parking should be given a balanced level of • Accommodate securing frame and wheels importance when considering car parking improve- . Dees not trip pedestrians ments or development.In commercial areas where bicycle traffic is more prevalent, as well as parks • Are easily accessed yet protected from motor and shopping centers, increased bicycle parking vehicles is recommended. • Are covered if users will leave their bicycles for Bicycle rack type plays a major role in bicycle rack long periods utilization. Only racks that support the bicycle at • Are located where cyclists are most likely to travel two points and allow convenient locking should be used.The Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBf y recommends selecting bi- cycle racks that: Discussion • Supports bicycle in at least two places,prevent- Where bicycle parking is very limited,an occasional ing it from falling over parking space could be converted into a bicycle • Allow locking frame and one or both wheels corral to increase the attraction of cycling to the with U-lock commercial district instead of driving there. See • Are securely anchored to ground bike corrals. Resist cutting, rusting, bending or deformation Materials and Maintenance Use proper anchors to prevent vandalism and theft. Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO.Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- cilities. 2012. APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition.2010. Loop may be attached to retired parking meter posts to formalize them as bicycle parking. t. Pr k App5Q []BE] City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HINEBIKETEMECULADRG h Bicycle Lockers Description Guidance Bicycle parking facilities intended for long-term • Minimum dimensions: width (opening) 2.5 parking must protect against theft of the entire feet, height four feet, depth six feet bicycle and its components and accessories. • Four foot side and six foot end clearance Three common ways of providing secure long-term • Seven foot minimum distance between fac- bicycle parking include: ing lockers • Fully enclosed lockers accessible only by user, - Locker design allows visibility and security either coin-operated,or by electronic,on-demand inspection locks operated by "smartcards" equipped with • Access controlled by key or access code touch-sensitive imbedded RFID chips • Continuously monitored facility that provides at least medium-term type bicycle parking facilities generally available at no charge • Restricted access facilities in which short-term type bicycle racks are provided and access re- stricted only to owners of bicycles stored there Perhaps the easiest retrofit is the bicycle locker. Generally, they are as strong as the lacks on their doors and can secure individual bicycles with their panniers,computers,lights,etc,left in place.Some bicycle locker designs can be stacked to double the parking density. - r 4, Will ►e Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Long-term parking facilities are more expensive AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- to provide than short-term facilities, but are also cilites.2412. is significantly more secure. Although many bicycle APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition. 2010. commuters may be willing to pay a nominal Fee to guarantee the safety of their bicycle, long-term bicycle parking should be free wherever automobile parking is free. Materials and Maintenance Regularly inspect moving part function and enclo- sures.Change keys and access codes periodically to prevent access by unapproved users. App57 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines On-Street Bicycle Corral Description Guidance Bicycle corrals are generally former vehicle parking See bicycle rack guidelines section. stalls converted to bicycle parking_Most have been . Bicyclists should have entrance width from on-street conversions„ but they are now being roadway of 5 to 6 feet incorporated into shopping center parking lots as well. Corrals can accommodate up to 26 bicycles - Desirable to put bicycle corrals near intersections per former veh icle parking space.On-street bicycle - Can be used with parallel or angled parking corrals provide many benefits where bicycle use is . Parking adjacent to curb extensions good *� high and/or growing. candidates for bicycle corrals since extension • Businesses - Corrals provide a much higher serves as delimitation on one side customer to parking space ratio and advertise "bicycle friendliness."They also allow more out- Lockers can be custom designed and fabricated to door seating for restaurants by moving the bi- complement specific locations. cycle parking off the sidewalk.Some cities have instituted programs that allow local businesses to sponsor or adopt a bicycle corral to improve bicycle parking in front of their business. • Pedestrians -Corrals clear the sidewalks and Additional References and Guidelines those installed at corners also serve as curb APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition.2010. extensions • Cyclists - Corrals increase the visibility of cy- cling and greatly expand bicycle parking options • Vehicle drivers - Corrals improve visibility at intersections by preventing large vehicles from parking at street corners and blocking sight lines Improved comer visibility r a Remove existing sidewalk bicycle racks to maximize pedestrian space. ` r Discussion Materials and Maintenance In many communities,the installation of bicycle cor- Physical barriers may obstruct drainage and collect rals is driven by requests from adjacent businesses debris. Establish a maintenance agreement with and is not a city-driven initiative.In other areas,the neighboring businesses. city provides corrals and business associations take responsibility for maintenance. App52 OUR City of Temecula,California•Multi use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKERIKETEMECULkORG Secure Parking Areas (SPA) Description Guidance A Secure Parking Arca for bicycles,also known as Key features may include: a Bike SPA or Bike& Ride(when located at transit . Closed-circuit television monitoring stations), is a semi-enclosed space that offers a higher level of security than ordinary bike racks.Ac- • Double high racks and cargo bike spaces cessible via key-card, combination locks, or keys, • Bike repair station with bench Bike SPAS provide high-capacity parking for 10 to . Maintenance item vending machine 100 or more bicycles.Increased security measures create an additional transportation option for those • Bike lock"hitching post"allows users to leave whose biggest concern is theft and vulnerability. bike locks Secure access for users10 t209iV Discussion Additional References and Guidelines Long-term parking facilities are more expensive AAS HTO. Guide for the development of Bicycle Fa- to provide than short-term facilities, but are also cilities.2012 significantly more secure.Although many bicycle APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition. 2010 commuters would be willing to pay a nominal fee to guarantee the safety of their bicycles,long-term bicycle parking should be free wherever automobile parking is free. Materials and Maintenance Regularly inspect moving part function and enclo- sures.Change keys and access codes periodically to prevent access by unapproved users. App53 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Bike Fix-it Stations ��• Description Guidance A bike fix-it station is a public work stand complete Stations are best placed in public areas with a with tools to perform basic bike repairs and main- significant amount of bicycle traffic or at popular tenance including fixing a flat to adjusting brakes. trailheads. While there are several stand designs, they all provide an ergonomic work environment for any Wall Setbacks rider.The tools are attached to the stand via stain- • Minimum 48 inches from side of station to wall less steel gauge cables to prevent theft. Hanging or other objects the bike from the arm hangar allows the pedals and • Minimum 12 inches from back of station to wall wheels to move freely while making adjustments or other objects a_ to the bike. Street or Trail Setback • Minimum 64 inches from perpendicular street/trail Minimum 96 inches from parallel street/trail POW ■ At _ V i # �F Discussion Stations employ universal bike mounting and should be ADA compliant. Common bike tools are tethered to the station by stainless steel cables.The stations'tubing are generally powder coated,galva- nized or stainless steel anchored into concrete or another proper base material specified by vendor. Stations can be color customized from a variety of colors available by vendor. Many stations have a QR code with repair instructions should the rider _ need additional information. Materials and Maintenance Stations are built for outdoor use and sealed from the elements.Some vendors provide a warranty for service and repair should vandalism or mechanical failure occur. App54 BUMCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEWETEMECUU.0rZ Bicycle Access to Transit Description Guidance Safe and easy access to transit stations and secure Waylfinding bicycle parking facilities is necessary to encourage - Provide direct and convenient access to transit commuters to access transit via bicycle. Bicycling stations and stops from bicycle and pedestrian to transit reduces the need to provide expensive networks. and space consuming car parking spaces. Many . Provide maps, wayfinding signage and pave- people who ride to a transit stop will want to bring ment markings from bicycle network to transit their bicycle with them on the transit portion of their stations. trip, so buses and other transit vehicles should be 4, equipped accordingly. Bicycle Parking For staircases at bus or rail transit stations,bicycle - Route from bicycle parking locations to station/ access could be facilitated with bicycle channels, stop platforms should be well-lit and visible. AWThese consist of ramped channels wide enough to • Signing should note bicycle parking location, accommodate typical bicycle tires, installed below rules for use and instructions, as needed. and offset from staircase handrails far enough to . Provide safe and secure long-term parking clear handlebars. These ramps make it easier for such as bicycle lockers at transit hubs. Parking cyclists to walk their bicycles up and down stairs, should be easy to use and well maintained. rolling them within the channels. Long-term bicycle parking I bicycle �`,''�►. rack Ir'w l�h Map of bicycle routes Discussion Additional References and Guidelines N`� Providing bicycle routes to transit helps combine the APBP. Bicycle Parking Guide 2nd Edition.2010. long-distance coverage of bus and rail travel with FHWA. University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian the door-to-door service of bicycle riding. Transit Transportation. use can overcome large obstacles to bicycling, Lesson 18: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to including distance, hills, riding on busy streets, Transit.2006. night riding, inclement weather and breakdowns. Materials and Maintenance Regularly inspect the functioning of long-term park- ing moving parts and enclosures. App55 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Bikeway Facility Maintenance Regular bicycle facility maintenance includes sweeping, maintaining a smooth roadway, ensur- ing that the gutter-to-pavement transition remains relatively flat and installing bicycle-friendly drainage grates. Pavement overlays are a good opportunity y to improve bicycle facilities. The following recom- mendations provide a menu of options to consider enhancing a maintenance regimen. --�—'a O • N s 1c-. r 10 Gutter to Pavement Transit' r. . IRE* Roadway •. � +tel Drainage Grates Appb6 iv OBNCity of Temecula,California•Mufti-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMEC U LA.ORG Sweeping r Description Guidance Bicyclists avoid shoulders and bike lanes known to Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule that pri- be filled with gravel, broken glass and other debris oritizes roadways with major bicycle routes: and will ride in the roadway to avoid these hazards, . Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever de- potentially causing conflicts with drivers_ Debris bris accumulates on facility from the roadway should not be swept onto side- walks(,pedestrians need a clean walking surface), • In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up nor should debris be swept from the sidewalk onto debris;on open shoulders,debris can be swept the roadway.A regularly scheduled inspection and onto gravel shoulders maintenance program helps ensure that roadway • Pave gravel driveway approaches to minimize debris is regularly cleaned up. loose gravel on paved roadway shoulders _ • Perform additional sweeping in spring to re- move winter debris accumulations 'F • Perform additional sweeping in fall in areas where leaves accumulate i - Note: Some separated bike facilities(cycle tracks) that employ curbs or other physical barriers for - separation may be too narrow for standard street sweepers, which require 10 foot clearance. If this Is the case, smaller sweepers are available. 4 y Gutter to Pavement Transition Description Guidance On streets with concrete curbs and gutters, the • Ensure no more than 1/4" inch vertical gutter-to- outer one to two feet is typically the gutter pan, pavement transition where water collects and drains into catch basins. • Examine pavement transitions during every On many streets, bikeway is situated near the roadway project for new construction, mainte- transition between gutter pan and pavement edge. nance activities and street construction project This transition can be susceptible to erosion,creat- activities ing potholes and a rough surface for travel.These . Inspect pavement two to four months after areas can also be prone to standing water during trenching construction activities are completed and after rains. to ensure excessive settlement has not oc- curred • Provide at least three feet of pavement outside 's of gutter seams • Check for potential drainage issues when add- ing new bike facilities such as separated lanes, roundabouts and traffic circles • Installing adjacent bioswales to capture runoff ., and avoid standing water in bike lanes is be- coming standard part of building bike facilities a_ f in bike-friendly communities App57 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Roadway Surface Description Guidance Bicycles are much more sensitive to subtle changes - Maintain a smooth pothole-free surface, in roadway surface than motor vehicles, Various • Ensure new roadway construction bikeway fin- materials are used to pave roadways and some ished surface does not vary more than 1/4 inch are smoother than others.'Uneven settlement after . Maintain pavement so ridge buildup does not trenching can affect roadway surface nearest the occur at gutter-to-pavement transition or adja- curb where bicycles travel. If compaction is not cent to railway crossings achieved to a satisfactory level, uneven pavement surface can result due to settling. - Inspect pavement two to four months after trenching construction activities are completed When resurfacing streets, use the smallest chip to ensure excessive settlement has not occurred size and ensure that the surface is as smooth as . If chip sealing is to be performed, use smallest possible for bicyclist safety and comfort. possible chip size on bike lanes and shoulders and sweep loose chips regularly following ap- plication - During chip seal maintenance,if bike lane pave- ment condition is satisfactory, it may be appro- priate to chip seal travel lanes only. However, avoid creating unacceptable ridge between bike lane and travel lane Y� P� Drainage Grates Guidance Require all new drainage grates be bicycle-friendly, Description including grates with horizontal slats to prevent bi- Drainage grates are typically located in the gutter cycle and assistive device tires from falling through. area near the curb of a roadway. Drainage grates • Create program to inventory all existing drain- typically have slots through which water drains age grates and replace hazardous grates as into the municipal storm sewer system. Some necessary—temporary modifications such as older grates were designed with linear parallel bars installing re-bar horizontally across grate should spread wide enough for a tire to become caught so not be acceptable alternative to replacement that if a bicyclist were to ride on them,the front tire could become caught in the slot.This can cause the bicyclist to tumble over the handlebars and sustain potentially serious injuries. F--i d"Max spacing Acceptable grate types Direction of travel App58 0' City of Temecula,California•Mufti-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update 00 Ill H[KEBIKETEMECULA.oP G Bikeway Maintenance and Operations Description Motor vehicle traffic tends to "sweep" debris like Construction controlled through permits, such as litter and broken glass toward the roadways edges driveway, drainage and utility work can have an where it can accumulate in bicycle lanes. Maneu- important effect on roadway surface quality where vering to avoid such hazards can cause a cyclist to cyclists operate in the form of mismatched pave- fall. In this way, proper maintenance directly affects ment heights, rough surfaces or longitudinal gaps in safety and street sweeping must be a priority on adjoining pavements,or other pavement irregulari- roadways with bicycle facilities, especially in curb ties. Permit conditions should ensure that pavement lanes and along curbs themselves. Law enforce- foundation and surface treatments are restored to ment can assist by requiring towing companies their pre-construction conditions, that no vertical to fully clean up crash sites to prevent glass and irregularities will result and that no longitudinal debris from being left in place or simply swept to cracks will develop.Strict specifications,standards the curb or shoulder after collisions. and inspections designed to prevent these prob- lems should developed.Afive year bond should be When any roadwork repairs are done by the city held to assure correction of any deterioration that or other agencies, the roadway must be restored might occur as a result of faulty roadway surface to satisfactory quality with particular attention to reconstruction, surface smoothness suitable for cycling. Striping must be restored to the prior markings or new Bicycle facilities should be swept regularly, at least markings. Bicycle facilities also sometimes seem twice a month and preferably more often for heavily to "disappear" after roadway construction occurs. traveled routes. Also, adjacent shrubs and trees This can happen incrementally as paving repairs should be kept trimmed back to prevent encroach- are made over time and are not promptly followed ment into the pathway or obstructing cyclists'views, by proper re-striping. When combined with poor surface reconstruction following long periods of no service due to road work, bikeway facilities can be"lost",which can discourage cycling in general. Construction that require the demolition and re- building of adjacent roadways can cause problems maintaining and restoring bikeway function. s App59 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Guidance for Colored Pavements: Waterborne Paints Thermoplastics Over the past 10 years, transportation agencies Thermoplastics are a durable pavement marking in the Jn1ted States have gradua'ly replaced con- material composed of glass beads, pigments, ventional solvent paints with waterborne paints binders (plastics and resins) and fillers. There that have low volatile organic compounds (VDC) are two types of thermoplastics: hydrocarbon and and other newer pavement marking materials. alkyd. Hydrocarbon thermoplastics are made from Waterborne traffic paints are the most widely used petroleum-derived resins;and alkyd thermoplastics and least expensive pavement marking material are made from wood-derived resins. Another ad- available. Glass beads are either pre-mixed into vantages of thermoplastic is that the material can the paint or dropped onto the wa_erborne paint to be re-applied over older thermoplastic markings, provide retro-reflectivity. simultaneously refurbishing the older markings and saving the cost of removing old pavement Waterborne paints generally provide equal per- markings.Although thermoplastic materials usually formance on asphalt and oonorPtP pavements, perform very well on all types of asphalt surfaces, but have the shortest service life of all pavement there have been mixed results when they have marking materials.This paint type tends to wear off been applied on concrete pavements. rapidly and lose retro-reflectivity quickly after being exposed to factors such as high traffic volumes. Use of Green Paint Although still a widely used material, waterborne paint is also used as an interim marking material A significant recent change is the FHWA's interim until they can apply something more durable. approval for the use of green colored pavement within bicycle lanes in mixing or transition zones, Regular Solvent Paint such as at intersections and in other potential This type of paint can be used universally for any conflict zones where motor vehicles may cross a pavement needing paint and is the least expensive, bicycle lane. They are intended to warn drivers to Additives such as reflective glass beads for reflec- watch for and to yield to cyclists when they encoun- tivity and sand for skid resistance are widely used ter them within the painted area_ FHWA studies to mark road surfaces. This is typically considered have also shown that green bicycle lanes improve a non-durable pavement marking and is easily cyclist positioning as they travel across intersec- worn by vehicle tires and often requires annual tions and other conflict areas. re-application. Jurisdictions must notify Caltrans before proceed- Durable 'Liquid Pavement Markings ing with green bicycle lanes because the agency is required to maintain an inventory, but since Durable liquid pavement markings (DEEM)include Caltrans has requested to participate in this in- epoxy and methyl methacrylate (MMA). Epoxy terim approval, the process has been streamlined paint has traditionally been viewed as a marking because FHWA experimental treatment protocol is material that provides exceptional adhesion to both no longer required. asphalt and concrete pavements when the pave- ment surface is properly cleaned before application. The strong bond that forms between epoxy paints and both asphalt and concrete pavement surfaces results in the material being highly durable when ap- plied on both pavement surfaces. These markings are highly durable and can be sprayed or extruded but generally require long no-track times. AMW App60 AFT-M H *� City of Temecula,California-Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update H.�xr 1 HIKE91NETEMECULA.ORG Product Life Estimates for Paint Durable Liquids for Pavement Markings: • 9-36 months Epoxy • Inexpensive - 4 years • Quick-drying - Longer life on low-volume roads • Longer life on low-volume roads - More retro-reflective • Easy clean-up and disposal - Slow drying • Short life on high-volume roads - Requires coning and/or flagging during ap- - Subject to damage from sandlabrasives plication • Pavement must be warm or will not adhere - Heavy bead application may need to be cleaned off roadway - High initial cost y • Subject to damage from sandlabrasives Thermoplastic - 3-6 years - 'Long life on low-volume roads - Retro-reflective - No beads needed Any temperature for application '�. - Recommended use for symbols and spot treat- ments r - Subject to damage from sandlabrasives - Cost prohibitive for large scale applications - Shown to wear quickly in conflicts areas - Life of pavement marking will depend on traffic volume,surface condition and application time Additional References and Guidelines NACTQ, Urban Bikeway Design Guide.2014. FHWA. Durability and Retro-Reflectivity of Pavement Markings(Synthesis Study). 2008 App69 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines On-Street Bikeway Signing The following signage system guidelines specifical- A community-wide bicycle wayfinding signage plan ly address on-street bicycle routes. Such signage identifies: is regulated by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Con- . Sign locations trol Devices(MUTCD), which establishes national standards for traffic signs and related traffic control • Sign types — what information should be in- devices.This ensures MUTCD-compliant signs are cluded and design features familiar to all roadway users. • Destinations to be highlighted on each sign — The MUTCD should therefore govern sign design key destinations for bicyclists I and placement technical aspects, such as dimen- - May include approximate distance and travel sions, font size and ground clearance. It guidance time to each destination is intended to improve cyclists' experience and to - Bicycle wayfinding signs can visually cue driv- help encourage people to ride more frequently, or ers that they are driving along bicycle route and to begin riding. should use caution The ability to navigate through a city's streets is in- • Sign placement such as at key locations leading formed by landmarks,natural features and othervisual to and along bicycle routes,including intersec- cues. Signs throughout the system should indicate: tion of multiple routes • Travel direction Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of- - Destinations locations way and it is recommended that signs be posted • Travel time/distance to those destinations at a level most visible to bicyclists rather than per vehicle signage standards. These signs will increase users'comfort and bike- way system accessibility. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including: • Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle network • Helping users identify the best routes to destinations Helping to address misconceptions about time and distance • Helping overcome a"barrier to entry"for people who are not frequent bicyclists(e.g.,"interested but concerned" bicyclists) Vp r 0iVtf_F4et Bikeway' Signage App62 City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKE BI KE T EM E C U LA.ORG On-street Bikeway Sign Types rks Description A on-street bicycle wayfinding system consists of i comprehensive signing and/or pavement mark- -- - ings to guide bicyclists to their destinations along preferred bicycle routes. There are three general on-street bikeway wayfinding sign types: Ll ' Confirmation • Indicate to bicyclists that they are on designated bikeway • Make drivers aware of bicycle route • May include destinations and distance/time, but not arrows Decision BIKE ROUTE • Mark junctions of two or more bikeways Confirmation Sign • Inform bicyclists of designated bike route to access key destinations • Destinations and arrows are required,distances are optional, but recommended • Travel time is nonstandard, but recommended Turn 01;F, City Hall �� • Indicate where bikeway turns from one street onto another. Can include pavement markings t dia Old Town Temecula 2 • Include destinations and arrows Decision Sign Discussion There is no standard color for bicycle wayfinding signage. MUTCD Section 1A.12 establishes the general meaning for signage colors. Green is the4= e' Murri eta color used for directional guidance and is the most common color of bicycle wayfinding signage in the US, including those in the MUTED. Turn Sign Materials and Maintenance Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs are similar to other signs and will need periodic replace- ment due to wear and fading,to which south-facing signs are especially prone. Additional References and Guidelines JIM AASHTU. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- cilities. 2012. California MUTCD, 2014. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. App63 u Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines On-street Bikeway Sign Placement .N,. Guidance Discussion Signs are typically placed at decision points along /Hist of destinations on signs should be based on bicycle routes —typically at the intersection of two their relative distance to users from a particular or more bikeways and at other key locations leading sign's location. A particular destination's ranking to and along bicycle routes. in the hierarchy can be used to infer the physical distance from which the location is signed. Decisions Signs Materials and Maintenance • Near-side of intersections in advance of junction wi.h another bicycle route Maintenance needs for bicycle wayfinding signs • Along route to indicate nearby destination are similar to other signs and will need periodic replacement due to wear. Confirmation Signs • Every two or three blocks along on-street bi- cycle facilities. unless another sign type is used Additional References and Guidelines (e.g.,within 150 feet of a turn or decision sign) AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Fa- • Should be placed soon after turns to confirm cilities. 2412. destination(s) California MUTCD. 2014. • Pavement markings can also be used for con- NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. firmation that bicyclist is on preferred route Turn Signs • Near-side of intersections where bike routes turn (e.g., where the street ceases to be a bi- cycle route or does not go through). Pavement markings can also indicate the need to turn to the bicyclist. BIKE ROUTE , Confirmation Sign Library r - `�f ■ . Town Temecula r Decision Sign City Hall 411111111111110% Library 0 Turn Sign App64 + * City of Temecula.California•Mulb-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update kl KESIKE TIME CULA.0 RG Trails Signage and Wayfinding Wayfinding is a fundamental part of a cornprehen- Destinations sive trail system. Some cn-street bikeway signage attributes apply to multi-use paths and traits, but Destinations Shawn on trail wayfinding signs should there are also some fundamental differences. For be immediately recognizable to the majority of us- example, it differs from on-street signage systems ens. Certain categories of destinations,such as trail in that no specific standards apply, such as the heads and parks, are more appropriate far public MLJTCD.The Gity therefore can exercise significant signs than individual shopping Centers, though design freedom. the City can decide if these may be appropriate if they provide trail user needs, such as food, water, Effective trail wayfinding systems create well- seating, shade or restrooms, structured pathways that help travelers to: • Identify the r location Information Hierarchy - Assure that they are traveling in the desired direction Because our eyes tend to scan Information from • Navigate junctions and other decision--making points top to bottom and left to right, trail wayfinding signs • Identify the r destination upon arrival should be arranged as a hierarchical information flow that takes this into account. This means that It is likely that most wayfinding signage will occur the most important information should be near along the system's four backbone trails s nce the the top and left and displayed in the largest size. system's other trails intersect with them close to Information of lesser importance is placed below other signage systems,such as street and on-street that and in smaller sizes,located toward the sign's bikeway signs. Trail wayfinding signage design is right and bottorn portions, intended to readily orient users to their location within the overall system by employing system-wide key maps on all backbone trail signs. The Four Ds In the context of a trail wayfinding signage system, Destination Driven fundamental information is designation, destina- tion, direction and duration. Trail wayfinding signage guides users through the destinations displayed. As users approach a Each individual sign should first designate itself as given sign, it presents a set of destinations acces- a piece of route wayfinding information, typically sible from that point.A user may be attempting to with a recurring and prominent icon or text, such reach a destination shown on the signage, so it as the HikeBikeTemecula logo.This information is will direct the person directly to their destination. displayed prominently at the sign's top. The sign However,destinations also serve a broader role by should indicate the route name,color or logo,such painting a general route picture, the area served as the Temecula Loop Trail. and the terminus. Signs provides useful orienta- People using a sign first need to identity the desti- tion information even for people are not going to a nation most relevant to them before they proceed particular dest•nation, such as using the signage to approximate their path to their own destination. to direction or distance information. Destination This is supported by system-wide key macs ❑n all information is generally presented along the sign's backbone trail intersection and trail head signs, left side. Direction and distance (duration) infor- mation are shown on the same line as the destina- tion. Directional arrows should be prominent. Nanning Routes Naming trail routes simplifies navigation, serving a predictability and Redundancy purpose similar to street names. One approach is Consistently repeating these features helps users to name routes based on key attributes like a des- to become familiar with their typical placement, tination ("Old Town"), a general orientation ("'Wine Country"),or a geographic feature("Lake Skinner"), shape, calor and font. They will learn #o anticipate where to expert to see signs and the messages For Temecula, the four primary backbone routes are therefore named the Temecula Loop Trail, the the signs will convey. The Hikel3ikeTernecula logo and colors should be consistently applied across Wine Country Trail, the South Side Loop Trail and the Lake Skinner Trail. the trail network's signage system. d App65 �,, Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines Designing for Human Scale Consistency and Repetition Trail wayfinding signs need to be designed for im- • Maintain consistent color,font and iconographic mediate legibility from the perspective of a person scheme riding a bicycle or a horse or walking. Factors like a . Strive to position signs at consistent heights user's height can inform sign design, but the card i- and locations on standard mounting devices nal design consideration is viewer speed.Because the fastest moving trail users will be cyclists, their Simplicity and Legibility needs should therefore drive signage legibility. . Use shortest,most concise phrasing whenever ' Based on guidance from Portland,Oregon,people possible riding bicycles should be able to see an upcoming • Consider using icons to supplement text for sign from about 100 feet away. They should not people not fluent in English have to stop to read a sign, so signs must clearly convey their message, ideally within a seven sec- Distance Measurements and envelope. The following principles help to ' Confirmation and decision signs should convey achieve this goal. distances measured in miles Text Sign Design and Color Capital letters should be 2 to 2.5 inches tall Trail wayfinding signs often include some aesthetic . Signs should be mixed-case,not all upper case cues and place a stronger emphasis on graphic design than other wayfinding sign systems. As Information should be five text lines maximum shown in the conceptual examples on the following Contrast and Proximity pages, Temecula's trail system signage primary • Maintain high contrast between text and back- colors should be those already in use in the Hike- ground colors BikeTemecula logo. The signs' irregular outlines are also intended to make them stand out visually. - Related pieces of information should be grouped and assigned similar sizes and shapes HIKEBIKETEMECULA.ORG Appss lt•� City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULAAFG Sign Types Confirmation Signage Concepts � + The proposed trail wayfinding system employs confirmation and decision sign types. They have different purposes and messages, but they work together to guide trail users along a designated TEMECULA OP trail network. # •�'" The system employs the sign types separately, as well as combines them in a modular lash on. This Old Town 0 - reduces the number of sign types needed and helps to reinforce the system's recognizability. Lake Skinner 0.8 Miles Confirmation Reagan • Indicate to trail users which designated trail Sports Park 1.2 Miles Ronald they are on • Include destinations and distance/time, but no arrows • May be stand-alone or be combined with deci- SOUTH SIDE LOOP sion signs Decision Did Town 0.3 Miles • Sign sets mark junctions of two or more trails • Inform trail users of designated route to access Lake Skinner r desired destinations • Display both destinations and arrows ;Ronald Reagan • Intended to be used in sets, or combined with Sports ■ ark confirmation signs -;�- • When combined,confirmation signs are mount- ed above decision signs, which are mounted in order of distance from destinations they list, +w With Closest first Large Map • Intended for major intersections where back- bone trails meet and at trailheads along them Old Town 3 Minutes • At such locations, signage consists of confir- mation, decision and large map signs pole Lake Skinner 6 Minutes - mounted together, in order from top to bottom • Supplement with other signs as needed -. _ Reagan r Minutes -Sports Park These maps would be identical, with a "You Are Here"label affixed to each sign corresponding with its specific location. This requires the creation of a single map sign, which can duplicated as needed. WINE COUNTRY TRAIL This reduces system costs and helps to reinforce the system's recognizability. Conceptual signage designs employing these prin- • . Town 3 Minutes ciples are shown on the following pages. Lake Skinner 6 Minutes Ronatel Reagan .10 Minutes - Park Sports App67 Confirmation Signage, ��- Decision Signage Minor Intersection: Combined ,�� o a WINE CaUNTR'YTRAII. TEI�'IECULA LC7�P LAI(E S�CII�INE�TRAIL SC7�UTH SIDE L+C]C3P a�a - SQIJTH 'SIDE L�7t3P LAI{E S1iINIV�ER TRp►IL T`EN'IECULA L�+QP WINE �couNTRYTRAIL Confirmation/Decision _.- V.6 miles �,,. ..a�.• " WCNE COUNTRY — LAIC£53(!NN£R WINE CC]UNT RY vr,.us. ■ ' /� PSmiln _ Y W�■ wE �1KIu�T�Y L14N45f(iNNER LAKE SKI�JNER +d.$ miles rr . UIUMCity of Temecula,California-Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Flan Update HIKEBIKETEMECULA.0% i„ra Large Map Signage Concepts "��, Hl KEBIKETEMEC ULA.ORG 1 J LAKE SKINNER a Rp Rap�ha °��Rp OLD TOWN ink ;s WINE Oy° q„y hdr COUNTRY ! u Ra I y TEMECU A LOOP - LAKE SKINNER LOOP SOUTH SIDE LOOP - WINE COUNTRY LOOP App69 Appendix A:Toolbox- Design Guidelines LAKE ■ rMNNM • r R a nd ••■a !•; OLD TOWN i ■aaal� • ! *000 '?o ■a z• Aa ■! a*0460 s, �.�L • 11rIHE COUNTRY as � r • ! ■ r • r■ 00000f0`04r000a !� • ala; i �••• TEMECULA LOOP some LAKESKINNERLOOP aas- WINECOUNTRYLOOP ■s■• SOUTH SIDE LOOP App70 11913 City of Temecula,Californias Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKEnWCULA.ORG Major Intersection Signage Combined Cop firmation/Decisionitarge Map • HIKEBIKETEMECULA.ORG a f ib. R • aPP71 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines Sign Materials Signs can be manufactured from a variety of sub- High-density Overlay (HDO) Plywood strate materials, including wood, metals, plastics Marine-quality, 314 inch plywood with one side cov- and fiherglass. The message or artwork is usually efed with a high density,slick material(the overlay), either painted or printed (usually by silk screening) to which adhesives cling quite strongly. Commonly or applied as adhesive vinyl film.Some commonly used as the substrate for pressed-on materials such used substrates are described below, but in gen- as reflective vinyl, It weathers well and holes in the eral, most small to medium sized directional signs vinyl can be easily repaired, are now made of aluminum substrate panels cov- ered with printed adhesive vinyl overlay, on one or Plastics both sides, which are often digitally printed. Sign making can involve a variety of plastics; Aluminum Acrylic, or Plexiglas, is a hard, rigid material that A common substrate for routine, smaller signs, withstands abrasion} well but breaks easily. It is Message usually silk screened onto substrate, often used as a clear protective covering over E=asily and significantly damaged by bullets and another sign. other forms of vandalism, but has good weather resistance. Medium initial and replacement costs. Polycarbonate, or Lexan, is similar to the acrylic panel but is softer, with a greater flex. Its softness Aluminum-clad Plastic makes it more likely to be marred by dust and Similar in character to aluminum signs.The plastic blowirg sand. core adds strength. This substrate is highly durable polyethylene and polypropylene are fairly common and light weight, making it ideal for kiosk panels or materials suitable for most routine sign applications. other signs mounted with a backing.Moderate cost. They are soft materials that have sufficient rigidity .Aluminum-clad Plywood to stand upas small signs,but not so rigid that they Similar in character to aluminum signs. Plywood are easily broken. backing adds support to the aluminum to provide They come in basic colors and accept paint (silk stability/rigidity for larger size signs. Moderate to screening) well. Generally. they weather well, but high i-inial and replacement costs, their softness makes them easy prey to vandals Porcelain Enamel on Steel wielding sharp or pointed instruments. Initial and replacement costs are low. This material is highly resistant to scratches, im- pacts and weathering. Most often used on interpre- Carsonite tive signs, it offers a very appealing appearance, Carsonite is a patented material that combines but at a high Initial and replacement cost. It lends fiberglass and epoxy resins to make a strong but itself well to graphic displays. High cult, but Has a flexible substrate. Used most often iri a thin, verti- lifetime of 20 years or more. cal format that may be useful for confirmation signs Fiberglass Embedment between destinations. Its hard, in-pervious surface g is best used as a substrate for decals, although In this process, an Image is embedded in a fiber- silk screening is possible. Very resistant to impact glassdepoxy-resin panel.While initial image cost is and weather with law initial and replacement costs. high, additional copies can be made at the same time as the original and put aside for later embed- ment at relatively low cost to realace a damaged Sign Mounting and Placement or stolen original.The fiberglass resists scratching, Trail wayfinding confirmation signs are generally impact and weathering very well. High initial cost, placed along the trail with about four or five signs but long lived. per mile. Occasional confirmation signs should be Metal installed on long segments between intersections. Engraved or acid etched metals, aluminum and As a general rule, signs should be mounted in stainless steel have a long service life, are gener- consistent,conspicuous locations. Clear sight lines, ally good or very good in their res stance to weather free of vegetation and Other obstructions, need to and fair or poor in their resistance to scratching or be maintained between the trail and the signs. Impact.Medium to high initial and replacement cost. App72 HUM city of Temecula,California Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HiKEBIKETEMECULA.OP G Quick Response Andes (QR Tags) Sign Implementation A Quick Response or QR code is an image that The following steps apply to most signage plan- functions similar to a barcode. The most widely ning efforts: used type consists of black squares arranged in . Define trail network to be signed, including a pattern on a white background that make up a backbone and connecting routes, as well as code containing letters, characters and numbers. route names(if desired) __..AM The OR code can represent a link to a website or video or other online content. Users scan a QR . Establish master list of destinations and assign ,�,• code with a smartphone or tablet camera enabled each to hierarchical level, if needed with a QR reader app and the device will load an • Establish signage design and placement guidelines encoded Web URL onto the device's Web browser. . Display destinations and route network together Posting a QR code assumes users will recognize on maps what to do with them and have smartphones • Divide routes into segments bookended by equipped with a QR reader app.Therefore,it is best major destinations that will be used as control to reserve the use of these codes for added infor- locations (termini)when creating signs mation or convenience. For example, a QR code . Identify junctions, turns and other decision posted on a trail sign could be encoded to direct points where turn or decision signs will be users to the City's active transportation website or online map for more information about trail and necessary bikeway routes. • Prepare signage plan, including sign schedule specifying individual sign placement and con- QR Godes can also be used to provide additional tent (Ideally, create GIS database to manage information, such as instructional videos, contact content and location details for each sign and information and more. They can be used on trail to support future system management) maps to provide more information about specific . Prioritize implementation destinations. One use gaining popularity is augmented real- - Implement signs ity, especially for interpretive signage. This goes beyond simply showing users web content when i� they scan a OR tag, but can, for example, show VV— distances to a selected set of destinations as users pan their smartphones around them.Another use is to display images of historical photos oriented in space as the user pans their smartphone. Sample Quick Response(OR) Tag ■ ■ ■ Appl3 Appendix A:Toolbox-Design Guidelines yr,aC�Av, App74 BullCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Ran Update HWEBIHETEMECULADRG Appendix B: Sidewalk Analysis Sidewalk Priority Index Methodology Temecula's sidewalk prioritization index considered Projects that afected a greater number of pedes- the relative need and cost of sidewalk improve- trian attractor types earned more points than those +�►-,._ ments to ensure that investment occurs in areas with fewer. In other words, projects with a greater with the greatest propensity for pedestrian activity, variety of attractors earned more points, regard- This index included a composite accessibility index less of gross number of attractors. Schools were and a cost-benefit index. The composite acces- also considered a pedestrian attractor,but differed sibility index included an array of critical acces- in point system. For example, projects with three sibility inputs, each weighted to reflect its relative schools within walking distance earned three times importance. as many points under that category as those with The cost-benefit index compared the accessibility only one, index with project costs to prioritize the most cost- Pedestrian Facilities effective sidewalk improvements. Relatively low This input related to the length of a contiguous pe- cost improvements that yield high pedestrian ben- destrian path to ensure the practicality of specific efits in critical access areas score high. Although facilities, including evaluating their connection to cost is important, it was weighted slightly lower than each other.Those of greater length received more accessibility. This was done purposefully to make points than those of shorter length. Projects were cost a potential tie-breaking factor for comparable broken down Into the following length categories. projects within the sidewalk priority index, should they occur. Further descriptions of individual ac- • 118 mile- 1A mile mil cessibility indices and the cost-benefit index follow. • 114 mile - 112 mile • 1/2 mile - 1 mile ACCESSIBILITY . >1 mile _ Pedestrian Attractors Pedestrian Generators T' These include attractions within walking distance Generators are largely related to demographic that people would likely walk to."Walking distance" information and were derived from US Census was determined to be 0.5 miles and attractors in- data. Employment and population densities within cluded the following: the project cersus tract were considered, as were • Offices demographic traits of those residing, such as the percentage of people who walk or take public trans- • Neighborhood, regional service and commercial portation to work or the percentage that do not own centers a motor vehicle. Projects within areas of greater • Parks and recreation facilities residential and employment density, especially those with greater walking and transit mode share • Transit stops and less car ownership, received more points than • Pre-schools and daycare centers projects with converse traits. • Libraries, post offices and other public facilities • Religious facilities • Schools App75 Appendix B:Sidewalk Analysis Pedestrian Attractoirs 55 i Pedestrian Barriers office 5 Neighborhood Commercial(Strip malls,local.retail) 5 Several inputs known to act as pedestrian barriers Parks and Recreation(Excludes non-useable open space) 5 were Included in the prioritization model; Re lona!Commercial and Retail 5 Collisions Service Commercial• 5 Bus Stops 5 • Speed limits Pre-Schc-oll0ay Care Centers 5 Public Facilities Llbraries.Post office and Rel. kous Factlities) 5 • Traffic volumes • Slopes and canyons Two schools 0 • Freeway crossings Three Schools or Morel 15 Average speed limits and traffic volumes were em- ployed for each zone.All inputs,with the exception '1 mile a of freawa crossings, were weighted according to 4 mile-11 mile 3 Y 9 9 9 ll+i mile-112 mile 2 severity.Freeway crossings,owing to the significant 118 mile-114 mile 1 barriers they represent, were weighted strongly irPedestrian Generators - respective of quantity. Walk to work(1) >2% 3 Public transportation to work(I I COST-BENEFIT INDEX >1% 3 1195 2 Planning-Level Cost Estimates How5ehcIds Wilt)No VeNcAe ownership(1) �2°Io 3 Planning-level unit cost measures were prepared to e2% help estimate the cost of Temecula's future sidewalk improvements. All sidewalk improvements were =10 3 assigned a planning-level cost estimate with unit 5-10 2 costs based on recent City of Temecula roadwayc5 1 2008 and sidewalk improvement projects. men]Do - >71-7d- 2-41 a 3 2-4 2 Cost-Benefit Ratio - <2 1 Acost-benefit ratio was calculated for each possible Pedestr an Barriers 16_ sidewalk improvement by dividing the project's es- >3 3 timated cost by the composite accessibility scores. 1.2 2 Cost-benefit index point values were then derived _ from the priority ranges.Sidewalk projects with the X45 4 lowest cost per point value were assigned the inost 3645 3 priority points in the cost-benefit index. <25 mph zniph 1 1 Composite Sidewalk Priority Index '20,000 4 10,000-20,0003 Acomposite sidewaik priority index was caIcuiated 5,000-10,660 2 for each sidewalk improvement based on the total 1.666-;ring 1 scores from the accessibility and cost-benefit Inde- Pedes]Landform Feature wlth Slope>10% 2 ces.The potential sidewalk improvements with the Landform,Walkway or Street Slope 5-10% 1 highest composite sidewalk priority index score(out 1 5% 0 of 100 possible) should have the highest priority Freeway Crossings Related to Pedestrian Travel (See Sidewalk Study Ranking). 3 st by Level of Effort JPhysical Improvement)ReqUired Sidewalk'portion only to complete all sidewalks within segment limits 5 Sidewak one side of seg ment limits 4 Sideaalt on both sides of segment limits 3 Street widenina and sidewalk on one or both sides 2 Additional ri htf-wa to accommodate sidewalk on one or both sides 1 Projecle,el - 1V6_9 -- Lowest 35%costly-11 5 Middle 35%cos!lpoln€ 3 Nt hesl 30%coslf2oinll 1 Maximum Passible Score: 106 App76 EYI City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Pian Update � HIKE81KETEMECULA.ORy i al u 1YAr rm.lq 8/Jf rd a O E1.mI ery LzlR.,6 g� Mi ddle 01 l 14h',Sd,m11 y 1 g FiGI Schon] Hlcn1rn.Ya1��„I' Schonl Pii4�� a•- Margarita,'p E sry , A Aft; 1 , vl M.n Jle •-� � x Van -Efanirrnary � � a;�SE fnoa m M o } Tmxc Ye VI.;: -'Ranchn(Calffarma. Rd leiuunu A 9cAao1 f1 '�are:r SantiagoR .1,, pF Rya�rrc °�V►S4 Rd r! ¢ i Gh+e LaamNal rrr °arA R..5k 1 � Ortol,R Hxon,s�lr�e � , � ♦�dla dnhr 0_wFtby � �y L16rrw�IAI , �.a.,PBgr�.r�lr Me,ltra r$ Bc _ scnnIS Iry ,� 4l$p d ,{ 1 t�� erwslar,rny �j` 1� 9rma.n�rn �'� � Mu1dM Scrwral Rp�i�wk �, 1 r,mt>gn+.l rc. I °aro �' y � !. icr •/• Hp3hitY1[ .` Yw°Rant1 - �^''+� 1� LL.r w Strnn III atFValleyR�'tf�/ e�r�n � "� ca�tiy Sorr MW � dr�i Pahln A7ai f•�� ( Wnrl C.rrvM EM:rttaidary A,Lpr..Jr A._•--� Troll Pnrrr O{{r;L,P(1y SCh"' if lrrnr�n iP:rrr ar HNarl SPYxs lwcls°n f 6lefneMfry Sthool 1 '� �:/c61.Hrr� ��+wrGrP.,,tiP3ar,vnraq 'a"' Sidewalk Study Projects r `r Y• oo1 --- Anaa Rd ry Projects - Ci� ��,``��'.,r• � Developer Projects aro Caltrans Projects Schools Parks ,{ Golf Course App77 Appendix B: Sidewalk Analysis NumberSegment Location* Estimated "0' a C and City - , 36 Ynez and Pauba $836,476 71 1 Portraits Lane La Primavera St 0.55 40 'Margarita Road $1,135,594 fib 2 Pauba Road Pio Pico Road 0.88 38 Pauba Road $866,676 65 3 Margarita Road Corte Vilfosa 0.74 34 Ride Park $1,336,775 63 4 Rancho California Rd Rancho Cal Rd 1.04 35 1 Solana Way $754,774 58 5 Skywood Drive Del Rey Road 0.59 7 North General Kearny Rd $529,158 56 6 Cam Campus Verdes Calle Pina Colada 0.44 31 Rider Wav $1,021,823 53 7 Enterprise Circle_ So Jefferson Avenue 1.14 32 Commerce Cen& Del Rio $1,822,066 53 8 Overland Drive Jefferson Avenue 1.00 27 Ynez Road $112,577 52 9 Country Center Or Winchester Road 0,10 25 Old Town Front Street $99,996 50 10 Moreno Road Moreno Road 0.80 4 winchester Road $117,750 49 11 Diaz Road Enterprise Cir No 0.09 20 Business Park Drive $',206,746 48 12 Rancho California Rd Diaz Road 1.25 33 Ave Alvarado&Rio Nedo $2,599,370 48 13 Tierra Alta Way Diaz Road 1.46 21 Single Oak Drive $207,895 47 14 1 Business Park Or Business Pk Dr 0.24 17 Rancho Vista Road $188,513 46 15 Via EI Greco Fosse Way 0.44 2 Pauba Road $540,682 44 16 Elinda Road Showalter Road 0.45 yJ'■ 14 Jedediah Smith Road $487,186 40 17 Temecula Parkway Cabrillo Avenue 0.43 39 IJedediah Smith Road $2,279,892 40 18 Cabrillo Avenue Margarita Road 1.69 10 Walcott Lane $1,035,518 30 19 Klarer Lane Calle Chapos 0.91 9 Calle Girasol/So Loop Rd $991,422 28 20 Riverton Lane Walcott Lane 0.89 22 Winchester Road $1,198,101 27 21 Remington Avenue Diaz Road 1.05 - 'See segment map 1 Qendy ParkwaylDiaz Road "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Developer project and projects that 3 Via Industria require coordination with Caltrans are 6 Solana Way not ranked.Segment number for location purposes only. 8 N colas Road 12 lYnez Road 15 Rainbow Canyon Road 16 De Portola Road 18 Deer Hollow Way 19 Jefferson Avenue" 23 Butterfield Stage Road 24 Ritterfield Stage Road 26 IYnez Road 28 ISantiago Road 29 Nicholas Road 30 Jefferson Avenue !� 37 Rancho Vista 5,Winchester Road,• , 11 Rancho California Road App78 Elul] City of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEBIKETEMECUMORG Appendix C: Community Input Summary Public participation has always been a hallmark of Other Comments Temecula's planning process. It was through public • Desire for a bike skills park/pump track input, not long after the City's incorporation, that . potholes in need of repair the demand for non-motorized trails first arose and spawned the original trails and bikeways master • Insufficient walkways and bicycle lanes plan in 2002. • Dead zones without connectivity The public input for this master plan update in- • Desire for Wine Country connections cluded an online survey that generated more than 400 responses and 550 written comments, two Corridor Comments well-attended community workshops(October 2013 Connectivity issues along: and November 2015), a "HikelBike" biking and • 79/Diaz RoadMinchester Road walking event in Old Town that kicked off at City Hall . Butterfield Stage/Diaz/Winchester Road and several meetings with the City Council Trails Subcommittee, attended by City staff and project • Diaz Road/Main StreetJWnchester Road managers, along with the consultant team. This . Rustic Glen Drive/Winchester Road strong community response directly influenced plan recommendations,especially desired destinations, • Margarita Road facility types and specific routes. • Pauba Road • Vail Ranch Road Community Workshops Prase for the following corridors: The two community workshops provided opportuni- • Business Park Drive ties for community members to give input on the existing trails and bikeways system and to identify • Butterfield Stage Road community priorities for future system enhance- General Comments ments.Additionally,the first workshop served as an opportunity to educate the community on bicycle Need/desire for. and pedestrian safety and opportunities for active • Bicycle parking at schools and shopping centers transportation within Temecula. Over 50 partici- • More education for cyclists and drivers pants attended the event. • Programs to increase bicycle commuting Three large City aerial photo maps were placed . Bicycle sensors at left-hand turns on tables for community members to mark-up with ideas, concerns or enhancement opportunities. • Bike skills park/pump track Post-it'NotesO,highlighters and colored pens were • Track that circles the entire city with hub distributed for community input. Facilitators were . Sidewalk and bicycle connections to shopping also available to answer questions and record comments from attendees regarding issues and • Updated trail map tonline) opportunities {geographic or non-site specific) • More trails and any other comments that could be helpful in the plan development process. Mapping exercise ' Organized hikes comments were collected and sorted by location ' and comment type. Location-Specific Comments Roadway improvements needed: • Butterfield Stage Road • De Portola Road ' • Rainbow Canyon Road • Santiago Road '4 • Safer crossings of 1-15 and 1-215 . �x "'+++►►►��� APp79 Appendix C: Community Input Summary Online Survey Results Two thirds of respondents answered "yes" or "sometimes" when asked if they "currently ride More than 400 people filled out the plan's online sur- their bicycles for running errands or short trips." vey and entered more than 550 written comments. Furthermore, four out of five respondents said they When asked what type of activity they were most would bicycle more if there were "safe and easily interested in, respondents selected road cycling(01 accessible paths between where you live and com- percent), followed by mountain biking (52 percent), mercial destinations." hiking (45 percent) and walking for exercise (42 The most popular facility type was paved bicycle percent). Running and nature viewing (32 percent) paths, with natural surface trails a very close and walking for relaxation (26 percent)came next, second. Note that both were described as being followed by horseback riding (15 percent) and nkat- separated from roadways. This preference was ingfskateboardinglscooter (7 percent). strongly supported again when respondents were When asked if they commuted by bicycle to work asked if they would use "trails along creeks and or school, 14 percent responded with "daily" or utility corridors separated from roadways" with 90 "3-4 days a week." Keeping in mind that this was percent answering `likely" or "definitely" that they a self-selected and therefore non-random survey, would use such facilities and with virtually the same this figure is quite high compared to most Ameri- percentage when asked whether they supported can cities. Also, while nearly half of respondents amore connected system connecting fragmented answered that they never commute by bicycle; bicycle lanes and paths." almost 00 percent of respondents said they would use "safe and easily accessible paths to work or school to commute." 4 Bicycle Boulevard Pump Track y c • Question 13 Images w App80 t drrm un City of Temecula, California•Multi use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HINEMKETEMECULA.ORG Of When asked about on-street bicycle facilities,there survey comment ward Claud' was a strong preference for"more protection than conventional bike lanes," such as cycle t-racks or Area buffered bicycle lanes. Improved bicycle detection fliflti_�Oicifl C- Ce at intersections and more bicycle events were alsoLalsOro ItYBikePath popular and 65 percent of respondents said "yes" i rTIMLInityangerous or "maybe" when asked if they would use a bike r + ''� share system. Almost two thirds of respondents said they would R3 ride more to major destinations and public facilies - ties if more secure bicycle parking was provided, "f , Review of relevant site-specific survey question responses indicate that Old Town is (or would be) C a the most popular destination, followed closely by the Wine Country.The only other destinations that rated nearly as high were City parks in general, 11�1)y -L&B especially Ronald Reagan Sports Park. _ ZD Goal Equestrians made up about 13 percent of respon- dents and many added written comments asking for better access to and within the Wine Country. ' MOLIntalifflikes Comments commonly cited safety concerns and L h 6, specifically requested separation from vehicle traffic. Margarita Remly C/) Almost a quarter of respondents were not Temecula OnJovekedcf or 501or residents,but 64 percent said they work in the City. ` ' ' fProvide Nets ` Survey question responses and survey comments Se 3Z both indicated a widespread desire for better off- OldTowm.:R..d street connections that allowed users to crossr _ Interstate 15 without having to interact with vehicle traffic, and especially facilities that improved ac- safeloads cess to Old Town. Accessing the Wine Country, Traffic especially via facilities separated from roadways, put S110PI)ilig i, Winchester was also popular, whether by bicycle or by horse. CD The initial community meeting was focused on , selecting five priorities based on workshop and or ir) survey input.The online survey's Question 4 listed W r"I'LAA Ito nine potential priority routes, most of which had been addressed in the original 2002 Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Of these, community necountry responses indicated that the most popular routes were as follows{See survey map on following page}: Survey comment text was processed through WordleO, a online tool that creates graphic "word clouds"with each ward sized to reflect its relative number of occurrences within the imported text-essentially a metadata analysis of survey comments. The resulting graphic of the top 100 words provides a "snapshot"that highlights what words showed up most often, which is likely to represent what is important to the most respondents. App8l Appendix C:Community Input Summary 1. North/south utility corridor route Additional Priorities 2. Eastlwest route along Rancho California Road In addition to the five priorities, three other en- hancements are included in plan recommendations 3. Temecula Creek because they appeared so frequently in survey 4. Santa Gertrudis Interconnect and workshop comments. Coincidentally, these included a location (Old Town Temecula bikeway 5. Murrieta Creek Trail improvements), a program {street sweeping) and a facility type (bike skills parklpump track. These closely reflected survey responses and workshop comments and correlated well with the 2002 plan's preferred routes. Priority Projects pry s a cYtOSffiT R� hir -i�`.. bra y Qa e �+. he SOiana Wy am OA Del Rey Rd Q 0 1 a0. n G AfifOfnla Rd ° anch0'rl1sta Rd Santia7o RC n a PaUW Rd k "�j 7 WA qjItoy Rd • [ � rear rs 5mnae.Yra+s D e% ! �xFaUnq Eikycle G Path les tm�% + , r ro � Z:dtS3 t-IAuIL.LKPahl a Loss ii Bke L"a ,HIMINETEMECULA.0 RG Py-tS App82 BoilCity of Temecula,California•Multi-use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update HIKEWETEMECULA.ORG Appendix D: Rules of the Road Operation on Roadway The California Vehicle Code(CVC) Section 21204 The on-road position of cyclists is narrowed by states that the rules of the road, as set out in CVC CVC 21202, which requires riding "as close as Division 11,that do not specifically apply only to mo- practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the for vehicles are applicable to cyclists. Only police roadway" except in certain circumstances. officers riding bicycles are exempt from the provi- sions while they are responding to an emergency 21202. A. Any person operating a bicycle upon a call, engaged in rescue operations, or in immedi- roadway at a speed less than the normal speed ate pursuit of a suspect. Otherwise, the following of traffic moving in the same direction at that time CVC sections constitute California's cyclist rules shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand of the road. curb or edge of the roadway except under any of 4. OPT the following situations: 21204. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the 1.When overtaking and passing another bicycle or provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by vehicle proceeding in the same direction. this division...except those provisions which by their 2 When preparing for a left turn at an intersection very nature can have no application. or into a private road or driveway. 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid condi- Locations of Cycling tions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving On-road objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)that Right Side of Roadway make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand CVC 21650 sets the on-road position for all ve- curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section hicles, including bicycles. 21656.For purposes of this section,a"substandard width lane" is a lane too narrow for a bicycle and a 21650.Upon all highways,a vehicle shall be driven vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. upon the right half of the roadway. 4.When approaching a place where a right turn is Cyclists are allowed but never required to ride on authorized. the shoulder. CVC 530 defines the "roadway" as "that portion of a highway improved, designed, or The wording "shall ride as close as practicable to ordinarily used for vehicular travel". the right" is sometimes misunderstood by police - officers, as well as cyclists. Bicycle Operated on Roadway or Highway Shoulder CVC 21650.1 clarifies that cyclists, unlike drivers of vehicles,are generally not prohibited from riding on the shoulder of the road. 21650.1.A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway. Al , App83 Appendix D:Rules of the Road Freeways and Expressways Use Restrictions Off-road CVC Section 21960 authorizes local authorities to CVC 21100 sets out that "Local authorities may prohibit or restrict the use of bicycles on free-ways. adopt rules and regulations regarding the operation of bicycles and, as specified in Section 21114.6, 21960. (a)The Department of Transportation and electric carts by physically disabled persons, or local authorities, by order,ordinance.or resolution, persons 50 years of age or older,on the public side- with respect to freeways, expressways, or desig- walks."Under this provision, many California cities nated portions thereof under their respective juns- have banned sidewalk cycling in business districts. dictions, to which vehicle access is completely or partially controlled, may prohibit or restrict the use Movement of the freeways,expressways,or any portion there- Turning Movements and Required Signals of by pedestrians, bicycles or other non-motorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven CVC 22107 requires cyclists to yield and signal cycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter.. before moving left or right. Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes 22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct Where bike lanes exist on roadways, CVC 21208 course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable requires cyclists to use Them,except under certain safety and then only after the giving of an appropri - conditions.There is no requirement to ride in a bike ate signal in the manner provided in this chapter lane or path not on the roadway, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by 21208, (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been es- the movement. tablished on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving CVC 21656 specifies that slow-moving vehicles in the same direction at that time shall ride within causing a queue of five or more vehicles behind the bicycle lane, except that the person may move them must turn off the roadway to allow the vehicles out of the lane under any of the following situations: behind to pass them.Section 21202 explicitly states that cyclists are "subject to the provisions of Sec- 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, tion 21656." vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot 21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is be done safely within the lane. unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions,a slow-moving vehicle, includ- 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection ing a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more or into a private road or driveway. vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the road- 3.When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle way at the nearest place designated as a turnout lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions. by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a 4. When approaching a place where a right turn is safe turnout exists,to permit the vehicles following authorized. it to proceed.As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one proceeding at a rate of speed less {b} No person operating a bicycle shall leave a than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time bicycle lane until the movement can be made with and place. reasonable safety and then only after giving an ap- propriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement. There is no requirement in the CVG for riding single file, but side-by-side riding may be regulated by local ordinance. App84 nunCity of Temecula,California•Mult•-use Trails and Bikeways Master Placa Update HIKEBIKETEMECUL&ORG Three f=eet for Safety Act Miscellaneous CVC 21760 requires drivers to maintain a three foot Equipment requirements space while passing a cyclist. CVC 21201 states that a bicycle ridden on public 21760. (a)This section shall be known and may be roads must have a brake on at least one wheel that cited as the Three Feet for Safety Act. can make the wheel skid on dry pavement. (b) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and Bicycles ridden at night must have the following passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction equipment. on a highway shall pass in compliance with the - A white front lamp (either attached to the bike requirements of this article applicable to overtaking or to the rider) which can be seen from 300 and passing a vehicle and shall do so at asafe dis- feet away. tance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle, having due regard for the ' A red rear safety reflector visible from 500 feet size and speed of the motor vehicle and the bicycle, away when iilumiraated by automobile bead- traffic conditions,weather,visibility and the surface lights. and width of the highway. • White or yellow reflectors visible from on the (c) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake bike's pedals or the cyclist's feet or ankles. or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction • A white or yellow reflector on each side of the on a highway at a distance of less than three feet bike's front half. between any part of the motor vehicle and any part • A white or red reflector on each side of the of the bicycle or its operator. bike's back half. (d)If the driver of a motor vehicle is unable to com- Youth Bicycle Helmets: Minors ply with subdivision (c), due to traffic or roadway CVC 21212 requires cyclists under the age of 18 conditions, the driver shall slow to a speed that is to wear helmets. reasonable and prudent and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the op- 21212. (a) A person under 18 years of age shall erator of the bicycle, taking into account the size not operate a bicycle, a non-motorized scooter, or and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic a skateboard, nor shall they wear in-line or roller conditions,weather,visibility and surface and width skates, nor ride upon a bicycle, a non-motorized of the highway. scooter, or a skateboard as a passenger, upon a (e)(1)Aviolation of subdivision(b), (c), or(d)is an street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the infraction punishable by a fine of$35. (2) If a colli- Streets and Highways Code, or any other public sion occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicycle bicycle path or trail unless that per-son is wearing causing bodily injury to the opera-tor of the bicycle a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that and the driver of the motor vehicle is found to be in meets the standards of either the American Soci- violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d), a $220 fine ety for Testing and Materials{ASTM)or the United shall be imposed on that driver, States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or standards subsequently established by those entities. App85 Appendix E: BFC Checklist Appendix E: BFC Checklist Ifl u Ott; cm All V ON Oe Vn -loin App86 City of Temecula,California•Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update _ �lel, ! • HIRE BIK ETE ME C ULA.O RG Appendix F: BTA Reviewer Checklist California Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2, items a-k Bicycle master plan compliance with applicable guidelines and standards is required by California Street Oo+. and Highways Code Section 891.2. for a municipality to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account � funding. Caltrans approval is also increasingly important for many other grant funding programs. The following appendix section describes how each code section item was addressed in this Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update. For reviewer convenience, code text and associated document sections and/or responses are listed under each item. (a) The estimated number of existing bicycle (d) A map and description of existing and commuters in the plan area and the estimated proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. increase in the number of bicycle commuters These shall include, but not be limited to, park- resulting from implementation of the plan. ing at schools, shopping centers, public build- Current estimate of bicycle commuters is 1,344 ings and major employment centers. using industry standard calculation methods. Ex- See Chapter 3 maps and tables. pected increase as a result of this plan was based an other jurisdictions'experiencewith bikeway sys- (e) A map and description of existing and pro- tein development. This also addresses forecasted posed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transpor- future employment increase of seven percent to 37,169,yielding 2,586 commuting cyclists,or 1,242 Cation modes. These shall include, but not be alimited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail additional cyclists, a 92 percent increase resulting from implementation of this plan, including students and transit terminals,ferry docks and landings, and transit users. park and ride tots, and provisions for trans- porting cyclists and bicycles on transit or rail (b) A map and description of existing and pro- vehicles of ferry vessels. posed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of See Chapters 2 and 3 maps and tables. residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping (f) A map and description of existing and centers, public buildings and major employ- proposed facilities for changing and storing ment centers. clothes and equipment.These shall include,but See Chapter 2 maps and tables, not be limited to, locker, restroom and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. (c) A map and description of existing and pro- See Chapter 3 maps and tables, posed bikeways. See Chapter 3 maps and tables. App87 Appendix E:BFC Checklist (g) A description of bicycle safety and educa- (h) A description of the extent of citizen and tion programs conducted in the area included in community involvement in development of the the plan,efforts by the law enforcement agency plan including, but not be limited to, letters of having primary traffic law enforcement respon- support. sibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Cee Appendix C, Community Input Summary. Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving (i)A description of how the bicycle transporta- cyclists. tion plan has been coordinated and is consis- The Temecula Police Department participates in tent with the local or regional transportation,air three major events each year; 1) Safety Town quality or energy conservation plans, including, hosted by the Rotary Club each year and teaches but not be limited to, programs that provide bicycle and scooter safety; 2) Teen Expo at the incentives for bicycle commuting. Promenade Mall to teach the importance of helmets Encouraging hicycle commuting is addressed and safety gear associated with bicycles, scoot- throughout the document, particularly Chapter 4: ers, skateboards and dirt bikes; 3) a Bike Rodeo Funding and Bicycle Programs, hosted each 'Spring by the Temecula Community Services Department, which teaches Rules of the A description of the projects proposed in the Road, safety and conducts bicycle equipment plan and a listing of their priorities of implementa- safety inspections. tion. The Police Department also hands out helmets See Chapter 3 maps, tables and program recom- to minors, as available, based on grants and cor- mendations. porate donations. During routine patrol, officers (k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle hand out helmets and explain their importance to facilities and future financial needs for projects that minors stopped for riding without a helmet, in lieu improve safety and convenience for bicycle com- of citations, muters in the plan area. The Temecula Police Department also has a Prob- The City has added 30 miles of bike lanes(including lem Oriented Policing (POP) team that uses bikes buffered lane markings), and four miles of shared to move around in crowded conditions during major lane marking (sharrows)during the past five years events in Old Town Temecula, at a cost of approximately $50,000. Several of these miles were completed during pavement rehab projects.The City has also provided bike racks and a fix-it station at key locations. Wine"giniq App8S NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing 1989 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: LR13-4001, Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan update Applicant: City of Temecula Proposal: Planning Commission review of the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution to approve the plan, which includes an updated inventory of trails and bikeways completed since the plan was adopted in 2402. The plan also evaluates the feasibility of proposed connections throughout the entire City. The plan includes five main sections; 1) History, Trends and Project Goals; 2) Analysis of the Existing Network; 3) Recommended Trails and Bikeways; 4) Programs and Funding Sources; and 5) Gap Closure Alternatives. The plan incorporates new design concepts found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and meets all Caltrans requirements for the City to be eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding and other grant programs. Environmental: Adoption of this Plan is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15262 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions, which actions the City Council has not approved, adopted, or funded, does not require preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors. Consistent with this exemption, the plan is limited to the preparation of concept plans and recognizes various environmental factors in the area such as aesthetic, historic and biological resources. The concept plans identified in Section 5, Gap Closure Alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize potential impacts on the environment. In addition, the alternatives illustrate one option for closing a bike lane or trail gap. Other options may be considered using the Toolbox, Design Guidelines in Appendix A. The plan is limited to concept plans only, and does not include design engineered plans. Therefore, the plan qualifies for this exemption. Should funding be pursued and obtained, site specific studies would be required to develop detailed designs beyond the conceptual level, which would at that time require complete environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Case Planner: Matt Peters, (951) 694-6408 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: May 18, 2016 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.org — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400. Item No . 25 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (SY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Adopt Updated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizen Participation Plan PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Principal Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT AN UPDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN SETTING FORTH THE CITY'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK PROGRAM (CDBG) FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN, ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING, ANNUAL ACTION PLANS, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS, AND SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-42 requesting the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designate the City of Temecula as an Entitlement City for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. On November 1, 2011, City Council adopted a Citizen Participation Plan (Resolution 11-78), setting forth regulations for citizen participation for the CDBG program. On April 10, 2012, the City Council adopted the City's first Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Resolution No. 12-30), authorizing the City to become an Entitlement City and direct recipient of CDBG funds from HUD, and identifying priorities for the use of CDBG funding through 2016-17. As an Entitlement Community, the City is required to make strategic choices about how it administers its local CDBG program. HUD requires that the City prepare a Five-Year Consolidated Plan that establishes goals for the use of CDBG funds, an Annual Action Plan action that guides the yearly use of CDBG funds and identifies the specific activities and projects during each program year, and a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, an annual expenditure report of projects and activities at the end of each program year. The Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) assesses the City's current housing market, analyzes demographics and socio-economic conditions, and identifies populations within the City which have the greatest community and housing needs, including seniors, families, persons who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, and persons with disabilities. It also defines the City's priority needs and strategies for reducing the barriers to housing and services in the community. The City's current Five-Year Consolidated Plan identifies the following priority objectives: • Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. • Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and residents. • Provide and improve access to public services for low- and moderate-income persons and those with special needs. • Provide for the economic development needs of low- and moderate-income persons and neighborhood target areas. The final year of the City's current ConPlan is program year 2016-17. The City has entered into an agreement with MDG Associates for the preparation of the 2017-22 Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing. Staff has begun working with MDG on the intensive process of updating the Consolidated Plan. As a part of the ConPlan process, the City must complete several components prior to the final adoption of the Consolidated Plan, including updating the Citizen Participation Plan. The attached Citizen Participation Plan is prepared in accordance with HUD regulations (24 CFR Part 91.105 - Citizen Participation Plan; Local Governments) and updates to the plan are reviewed and approved as part of the 2017-2022 Consolidated Plan process. Its purpose is to provide Temecula residents - particularly low- and moderate-income residents, residents residing in low- moderate-income neighborhoods; minorities, non-English speaking persons, and persons with disabilities - with an understanding of their role in the development, implementation, and assessment of housing and community development activities in Temecula. It also encourages their participation in the formulation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan, and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports. Because the City has been successful with its public outreach efforts in the past, only minor changes have been proposed to the original Citizen Participation Plan. These include: • Providing vital CDBG documents (marketing materials, notices, applications) in Spanish upon request • The ability to hold community workshops at any City facility (as opposed to limiting the location to the Conference Center) • Updating the Map of Low to Moderate Income Areas to include 2010 Census data • Updating the CDBG Notification List of interested parties Upon the adoption of the updated Citizen Participation Plan by the City Council, the City will embark on a public outreach effort to incorporate feedback into the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The AFH, a new requirement from HUD, replaces the Analysis of Impediments, and is due every five years in preparation of the Consolidated Plan. It involves consultation with agencies that provide assisted housing, health, and social services, including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with AIDS, and homeless persons. The City will utilize HUD data and public input to analyze impediments to fair housing. The Census-backed data will include maps and tables on public housing, housing burden, race, ethnicity, national origin, school proficiency, job proximity, transportation, persons with disabilities, and other demographic trends. While it is very early in the analysis, several maps have been included as an attachment to the staff report for reference. In order to further address community needs, HUD has implemented additional public outreach requirements into the AFH process. In addition to the introduction of the Assessment of Fair Housing at the June 28, 2016 public hearing, three public workshops will be held in conjunction with this process — two on June 29, 2016, and a third on July 30, 2016. A survey has been created to assess resident input regarding fair housing and affordable housing. The public will also have an opportunity to review the AFH 30 days prior to the City Council public hearing for approval of the AFH on September 13, 2016. The Assessment of Fair Housing is due to HUD on October 4, 2016 or no later than 270 days prior to the implementation of the 2017—2022 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is due to HUD May 17, 2017 and becomes effective July 1, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Citizen Participation Plan (Updated May 2016) 2. Resolution 3. Notice of Public Hearing (English and Spanish) 4. Resident Survey on Fair Housing 5. HUD Maps City of Temecula Draft Citizen Participation Plan Prepared by: City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 May 2016 Hearc of Soux`�Calli Wne C.—, 1 P C I T Y O F T E M E C U L A City of Temecula Draft Citizen Participation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Temecula receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a condition of funding, the City of Temecula must adopt and follow a Citizen Participation Plan that describes how the City will encourage public involvement in the development of the City's Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing. PURPOSE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN The City of Temecula recognizes the importance of public participation in both defining and understanding current housing, community development and fair housing needs, prioritizing resources to address those needs and reviewing performance. The City's Citizen Participation Plan is designed to encourage participation by residents and organizations representing people of all ages, genders, economic levels, races, ethnicities, special needs and protected classes of the development of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plans and Assessment of Fair Housing as well as to inform them of the CDBG decision-making process. The City shall actively encourage participation by non-English-speaking residents of the community and residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and other areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be used. This Citizen Participation Plan addresses Sections 91.100 and 91.105 of HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations, as amended on July 16, 2015 and Section 5.158 of HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule. This Citizen Participation Plan shall be effective until amended or superseded. GLOSSARY OF RELEVANT TERMS Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Actions that, when taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and opportunities, replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and facilitate compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. Analysis of Impediments (Al): The Al is being replaced by the Assessment for Fair Housing in 2016. Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH): An analysis of fair housing data, an assessment of fair housing issues and contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing priorities and goals. City CDBG Webpage: All draft and final Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report and Assessment of Fair Housing documents, public hearing and program workshop schedules and announcements may be accessed on the following City webpage: citvoftemecula.org/CDBG Low- and Moderate-Income Areas (LMA): LMAs are typically areas where 51% of the residents earn less than 80% of the County's median income. However, since there are few areas of Temecula meeting this criterion, the City is considered an "Exception Community", whereby LMAs are those areas where the highest 25% (upper quartile) of block groups with low- and moderate- income persons. Therefore, an LMA in Temecula would be currently defined as U.S. Census block group where approximately 35% of the residents are low- or moderate-income persons. From time to time, HUD will adjust that threshold based on changing demographics. Appendix A 2 1 P A G E C I T Y 0 F T E M E C U L provides a map that shows the eligible low- and moderate-income areas. Examples of CDBG activities that may be undertaken based on LMA eligibility include: • Acquisition of land for a LMA neighborhood park or recreation center; • Construction of a health clinic serving a LMA; and • Installation or replacement of gutters and sidewalks and other street improvements. Low and Moderate Limited Clientele Benefit (LMC): LMC activities provide benefits to a group of low- or moderate-income persons regardless of where they live. LMC activities are eligible if at least 51% of the clients are of low or moderate income. There are some groups that are generally presumed by HUD to be principally of low- to moderate-income such as: • Abused children; • Elderly persons (age 62 and older); • Battered spouses; • Homeless persons; • Severely disabled adults (not children); • Illiterate adults; • Persons living with AIDS; and • Migrant farm workers. Examples of eligible activities include: • Acquisition of a building for a shelter for the homeless; • Rehabilitation of a center to train severely disabled persons to live independently; • Development of a senior center or provision of senior citizen programs; • Public services activities (i.e., the provision of health or child care services); and • Removal of architectural barriers to the disabled. Protected Classes: The Federal protected classes include: • Disability • Family status • National origin • Race • Color • Religion • Sex Additional State of California protected classes include: • Marital status • Medical condition • Ancestry • Source of income • Age • Sexual orientation • Gender identity • Gender expression • Genetic information • Arbitrary discrimination 3 P =. � I CI TY 0F T E M E C U L A Severely Disabled Adults: Adults are classified as having a severe disability, if they: (a) have used a wheelchair or another special aid for 6 months or longer; (b) were unable to perform one or more functional activities or needed assistance with an activity of daily living or instrumental activity of daily living; (c) were prevented from working at a job or doing housework; or (d) had a condition including autism, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer's disease, senility, or mental retardation. Finally persons who are under 65 years of age and who are covered by Medicare or receive Social Security are considered to have a disability (and a severe disability). Functional activities include seeing, hearing, having one's speech understood, lifting and carrying, walking up a flight of stairs, and walking. Activities of daily living include getting around inside the house, getting in and out of bed or a chair, bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting. Instrumental activities of daily living include going outside the home, keeping track of money or bills, preparing meals, doing light housework, and using the telephone. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING (AFH) The AFH is required every five years prior to the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. The City must prepare, adopt and submit its initial AFH for HUD review no later than 270 calendar days prior to the start of the following program year. This means that the City must submit its first AFH by October 4, 2016. Subsequent AFHs must be submitted 195 days prior to the start of the following program year, which would be on December 18th every five years. This schedule will allow the City to consider any fair housing issues when developing the City's Consolidated Plan. As part of its AFH, the City will consult with agencies that provide assisted housing, health and social services, including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families and homeless persons. This will also include consultations with community-based and regionally-based organizations that represent protected class members and organizations that enforce fair housing laws. The consultation efforts will include regional government agencies, Public Housing Authorities and adjoining cities. Agencies including businesses, developers, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic organizations and faith-based organizations will also be consulted. These agencies will also be consulted in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans. A list of these agencies is attached as Appendix B. Other interested agencies are invited to join the notification list at any time. When preparing an AFH, the City will provide HUD-provided data and other information to interested citizens, agencies and organizations in an effort to provide meaningful analyses of local fair housing conditions and issues. The City will endeavor to provide this information as early in the planning process as possible, but it is subject to HUD releasing that data to the City. After the consultation process is under way, one public hearing will be conducted to obtain citizen input at least 30 days prior to publishing the proposed AFH. The City may choose to conduct this hearing in conjunction with one of the two required public hearings on the Consolidated Plan. CONSOLIDATED PLAN The Consolidated Plan is a HUD prerequisite for the City to receive CDBG funds. The Consolidated Plan examines housing and community development needs, sets priorities for grant monies and establishes a strategic plan with specific measurable goals to address priority needs. The City is in the process of preparing its second multi-year Consolidated Plan covering the program years July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022. The City Consolidated Plan only covers the geographic area within the city limits of Temecula. In addition to the Consolidated Plan, the City will annually conduct public hearings in the preparation of the Annual Action Plan describing the amount of funds available to the City and the activities to be undertaken with CDBG funds. Each of the agencies included in Appendix B will be consulted in the development of the Consolidated 4 1 P � I CI TY C -- TEME C U L A Plan and notified of the availability of draft documents including the Consolidated Plan and Action Plans. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The consolidated planning processes includes many opportunities for citizen participation. These include surveys, community outreach meetings, City Finance Committee meetings and City Council public hearings. The City will particularly encourage participation of persons with special needs and/or persons who are often underrepresented in public process (i.e. low income, non- English speaking persons, minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons who are homeless). Language Access Plan: The City has assessed its language needs and identified the need for translation of notices and other vital documents such as marketing materials and applications for CDBG assistance in Spanish to provide meaningful access, upon request. Community Surveys: As part of its Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing process, the City will conduct a needs survey of residents and stakeholders in the City. The purpose of the survey to obtain a broad range of community input and perspectives. Community Meetings: During the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing, at least two community meetings will be held to gather public input about the housing and community development needs from citizens and their neighborhoods. During the Action Plan preparation, the City will conduct two technical assistance workshops on CDBG applications. The community meetings will provide an opportunity for citizens and interested parties to obtain information about the City's housing and community development programs and eligibility requirements. The Annual Action Plan community meetings will provide information to potential applicants that may wish to submit funding proposals for their service programs or neighborhoods. City staff will be available at the meetings to provide technical assistance for developing funding proposals to address priority needs and meet the goals of the AFH and Consolidated Plan. At least one community meeting will be held in the early evening to accommodate work schedules and at least one community meeting will be held during daylight to accommodate those uncomfortable driving at night. City Finance Committee: The City has a Finance Committee that meets on an as-needed basis and performs in an advisory function to City staff and to the City Council concerning financial matters. The Finance Committee consists of two appointed City Council members. The Committee meets at least once a year regarding CDBG funding. They will review of all CDBG funding proposals and will direct staff on which activities should be included in the draft Action Plan. This meeting provides interested residents and agencies with an opportunity to participate in the funding process and the public is invited to attend. The meeting generally occurs about 45 days before City Council CDBG public hearing and/or in January or February after City staff has determined the eligibility of all CDBG service applications. In the event City staff proposes a substantial amendment to any of the CDBG plans, then a Committee meeting may be scheduled before proposing a substantial amendment at a City Council public hearing. Typically the public is notified of any Committee meetings three days prior to the meeting; however, when CDBG is a topic item on their agenda, there will be a minimum of ten days' advance notice. All applicants will be notified by email of the meeting so that they can answer any Committee questions about their application. A public notice is published in the local newspaper. 5 1 P G-_ CI TY 0F T E M E C U L A Public Hearings: A minimum of two public hearings will be held by the City Council each year. The first public hearing is usually held in September each year as part of the CAPER review process. This hearing will be held earlier than September if done in conjunction with the public hearing on the initial Assessment of Fair Housing to meet HUD's submittal deadline. The citizen process will conclude with a final public hearing in April or May to adopt the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. The public will have the opportunity of reviewing the draft Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan (and providing input to City Staff) within a 30-day comment period during March and/or April each year. City staff will incorporate public comments submitted to City staff during the 30-day comment period and then present the draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Action Plan) for approval to the City Council at a public hearing in the months of April or May. Public comments and citizen participation are encouraged during all public hearings each year. Notifications and Location of Public Hearings and Meetings: All public hearings will take place at the City of Temecula Civic Center, Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590, a location which is accessible to persons with physical disabilities. Community outreach meetings will also take place at a City facility where there are available meeting rooms. All sites selected for public meetings and public hearings are accessible to persons with disabilities. The City will provide a translator upon request to accommodate non-English speaking persons at public hearings or community meetings. Persons needing special accommodations or a translator should make their request one week before the meeting so the City can assure the special needs are met. These requests should be made to the Community Development Department at 951- 506-5172(951) 694-6400. Unless otherwise stated in this Plan, citizens will be given at least 10 days' advance notice of the City Council public hearings and community meetings. This will be accomplished through posting a summary of the documents on the City website (www.cityoftemecula.org), and at public places including the City of Temecula Public Library and City of Temecula Civic Center. Official notification shall take place through publication of a public notice in a local newspaper of general circulation (The Press Enterprise or The San Diego Union Tribune). To encourage participation, the City may also send email notifications or other outreach materials to residents, agencies and advocates, such as those interested parties and individuals listed on Appendix B. The City will maintain the list and verify the contact information periodically and, at a minimum, annually. The list will continue to evolve and be administratively modified each year without a substantial amendment, as stakeholders or potential participants are identified or dissolved. Organizations or groups and persons interested to be added the list may contact the City of Temecula Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400. During the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing, the City may distribute public notices to residents through property landlords or directly to residents living within existing, designated low income areas and neighborhoods throughout the City to inform residents about the public hearings as an effort to increase public participation by underrepresented groups. Other Requirements: The draft Consolidated Plan will also include the City's policies related to displacement of low- and moderate-income individuals, reducing poverty, removal of lead-based paint hazards, preventing and mitigating homelessness and removing barriers to fair housing choice. The City does not anticipate any displacement of individuals, but the Consolidated Plan will describe how the City will minimize displacement of persons or, in the unanticipated event of displacement, how the City will assist any persons who are actually displaced as a result of the use of these funds, specifying the type and levels of assistance and amount of compensation. 6 1 P � I CI TY C ? T E M E C U L A Plan Availability: The proposed Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, AFH, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) and any substantial amendments to plans will be available at the City of Temecula Public Library, the City Hall (in the City Clerk's Office and Community Development Department) and on the City's website at http://www.cityoftemecula.org during public comment periods. A reasonable number of hard copies will be available to the public and provided upon request. Citizens or groups that attend any of the community meetings or public hearings will be notified when the draft documents are available for comment. These materials will also be available in a form accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request. Comments, questions, or suggested amendments should be directed to the Community Development Department at 951-694-6400. The City will consider any comments from individuals or groups received in writing during the process of drafting the Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan as well as public testimony at hearings or meetings. A summary of the written and public hearing comments will be included in the final Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan, along with the City's response to the comments. Please note however that copies of the complaints, along with the City's response will still be sent to HUD, if they occur outside of the Consolidated Planning and/or Annual Action Planning process but may not appear in the Consolidated Plan. The City will provide a written response to all written citizen comments and complaints related to the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Amendments, and CAPER within 30 days of receiving the comments and complaints. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER): In addition to the required Plans and Assessment, the City is required to prepare a CAPER, which reports on its performance in the prior year. Before the City submits a CAPER to HUD, the City will make it available to interested parties for a comment period of no less than 15 days. Any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally at public hearings in regarding the performance report will be considered prior to submitting the CAPER. A summary of these comments shall be attached to the performance report. COMPLAINTS Residents or other interested parties may submit complaints to the City in relation to administration of the CDBG programs or plans. Complaints may be made via telephone by calling (951) 506-5172 or in writing to: Community Development Department/CDBG, City of Temecula, 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92589. The complaining party should state the nature of the complaint, what prior efforts have been made to resolve the problem and any other pertinent information which would help staff determine a solution. All complaints will receive careful consideration and a timely, substantive response will be provided within fifteen (15) days where practicable but no less than thirty (30) working days. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS Occasionally, situations warrant an amendment to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans. Minor amendments may be completed by staff with the approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. Minor amendments involve any change that does not meet the criteria for a Substantial Amendment. A Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan occurs when: • There is a new goal proposed or the City proposes the deletion of a previously approved Strategic Plan goal (changes to performance measurement indicators or numeric accomplishment goals shall not be considered a substantial change). 7 1 P A G E C I T Y 0 F T E M E C U L A A Substantial Amendment to the Action Plan occurs when: • A CDBG activity budget will increase by $50,000 or 25% of the project's original budget, whichever is greater; • There is a significant change in the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity; or • The City proposes to add or delete an activity, except in the following cases: o If the activity is on the back up list approved by the City Council in the Annual Action Plan; o If the activity is being deleted due to delays and would be included in the following year's Annual Action Plan; o If there are nonperformance or eligibility issues requiring activity termination; o If project deletion or funding reductions are due to facility closure or bankruptcy; o If the agency becomes disqualified or ineligible to receive funding or is unable to produce sufficient eligible billings in accordance with the provisions of the agreement; or o If an applicant requests that their activity be terminated. A Substantial Amendment to the AFH occurs when: • There is a significant revision involving a material change in the AFH pursuant to 24 CFR 5.164(a)(1) or upon HUD's written notification specifying a material change that requires the revision. A material change is a change in circumstances in the jurisdiction of a program participant that affects the information on which the AFH is based to the extent that the analysis, the fair housing contributing factors, or the priorities and goals of the AFH no longer reflect actual circumstances. Modifications to appendices of any plans are not considered to be a Substantial Amendment. If there is a rescission of funds by HUD, shifting of funds would not be considered a Substantial Amendment. If such federal government funding cuts or changes were to happen, the City would be required to follow its plan of action as outlined in the Consolidated Plan and/or the Annual Action Plan; however, any HUD-directed change would normally not be considered a Substantial Amendment. Citizen Participation for Substantial Amendments: In the event of a Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan or Action Plan, the City will conduct at least one public hearing. This hearing will be held after a comment period of no less than 30 days, where the proposed, substantially amended Consolidated Plan/Action Plan will be made available to interested parties. Citizens will be informed of the substantial amendment by public notice prior to the public review and comment period. The newspaper advertisement shall summarize the Substantial Amendment and inform the public of the date, time and location of the public hearing. The substantially amended sections of the Consolidated Plan will be available for review at the City during the full public comment period. In addition, the amended sections will be on the City's website, http://www.cityoftemecula.org, for the full duration of the public comment period. 8 1 P =. GE CI TY 0F T E M E C U L A Appendix A City of Temecula Map of Low- to Moderate-Income Areas 1Wmw Hal BaHn..qy 505.00 - 432.44 «► 43247 13244.x1 E i a t 4 432,18 32.18 XfM 496.00 a 432,17 ¢a F n 1 N� & 432.1632 5 \432.67 sole*tet 0-4, 432% .1 432.67 432.62 e1512.00 432.16 432.66 432.5 2 32,20 432.20 431,62 I e a 43264 432.46 �racanaM 432.22 2.64 32.6 2 432.64 1 1 t 512.06 _J �, �° 432.65 1 .. I 432,65 0 432.22 3 43256 492,57 8 2 3 325 43156 2 2 T lI 4 .54 5 X156 432.48 1 32.57 � 1�43e 1 432 54 250 3 3 432.52 432.54 1 ,w+ 2 .✓432.52 432.54 2 SPREE City of Temecula HH CDBG-LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AREA MAP o6mi1Q 2696 CENSUS AREAS (A.of Jmy l 2u14) LEGEND. -..—CITY BOUNDARY =Low AND MODERATE INCOME BLOCK GROUPS CENSUSTRACK BLOCK GROUP 9 P A G E C I T Y 0 F T E M E C U L A Appendix B CDBG and AFH Notification List of Persons or Organizations Any person or organization may be added to this list (or deleted) upon request. Please contact Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Senior Management Analyst Lynn.Leh ner(a)CityofTemecula.org or 951-694-6400 Agency Type Amcal Housing Affordable Housing Assistance League of Temecula Youth Valley Boys and Girls Club of Southwest Youth Services County Bridge Housing Affordable Housing California Apartment Association Rental Property Inland Empire Canine Support Teams Persons with Disabilities Circle of Care Ministries Food Bank City of Murrieta Adjacent City Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Affordable Housing Community Mission of Hope Homeless provider County of Riverside Department of SSocial Services Social Services County of Riverside Economic Local Government Development Agency County of Riverside Health Health Services Department County of Riverside Mental Health Mental Health Department Court Appointed Special Advocate Youth Services of Riverside County Dalton Properties Rental Property Economic Development of SEconomic Development Southwest California Fair Housing Counsel of Riverside CFair Housing County, Inc. GRID Alternatives Affordable Housing Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley Affordable Housing 10 1 P I C I T Y 0 F T E M E C U L A Hitzke Consulting Affordable Housing Hospice of the Valleys Healthcare Housing Authority of the County Public Housing Authority of Riverside Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Faith Based Temecula Jamboree Housing Affordable Housing John Stewart Company Affordable Housing Ken Follis Business Community Michelle's Place Healthcare Mission Village Apartments Affordable Housing NAACP Protected Class Operation School Bell Youth Services Pechanga Casino Employer Path of Life Ministries Homeless provider Riverbank Village Apartments Rental Property Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center Domestic Violence Riverside City and County CoC Homeless provider SAFE Alternatives for Everyone Domestic Violence Senior Citizens Service Center Food Bank Food Bank SMURF Youth Services Solari Enterprises Affordable Property Management Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors Housing TEAM Evangelical Assistance Food Bank Ministries Temecula Convention and Visitors Business Community Bureau Temecula Murrieta Rescue Homeless provider Mission Temecula Valley Chamber of Business Community Commerce Temecula Valley Hospital Health Services Temecula Valley Unified School Education District 1 1 I P A G E C I T Y O F T E M E C U L A Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Employer The Center for Life Change Drug Treatment The Olson Company Affordable Housing Voice of Children Youth Services Wells Fargo Business Community Western Riverside Council of Regional Government Governments 12 1 P A G E C I T Y 0 F T E M E C U L A RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT AN UPDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN SETTING FORTH THE CITY'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK PROGRAM (CDBG) FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN, ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING, ANNUAL ACTION PLANS, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS, AND SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A. The City of Temecula has participated directly within the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement jurisdiction for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds since July 1, 2012; B. The City of Temecula has prepared all documents, notices, and forms required by HUD for participation in the CDBG Program by entitlement jurisdictions; C. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-42 on June 14, 2011 initiating the City to obtain entitlement community status from HUD, and authorized the Director of Community Development to prepare and return for City Council approval all documents required for the designation as an Entitlement City, including the Five-Year Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan, the Citizen Participation Plan, and the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing; D. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-78 on November 1, 20117 approving the Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's policies and procedures for citizen participation in the development of its Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, Annual Performance Reports, and any substantial amendments deemed necessary for direct administration of federal CDBG funds; E. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-30 on April 10, 20127 approving the 2012-16 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, that contains a housing community development needs assessment, a survey of available resources, and a five-year strategy for achieving housing and community development goals, as well as the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing which outlines the City of Temecula's strategy to affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity and remove impediments to fair housing choice; F. The updated Citizen Participation Plan is in conjunction with 2017 — 2021 Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan; G. The proposed Citizens Participation Plan was available for comment between May 27, 2016 and June 28, 2016; H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares: A. Pursuant to Title 24, Housing and Urban Development, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A Office of the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Part 91 Consolidated Submissions For Community Planning And Development Programs, Subpart B Citizen Participation and Consultation, Section 91.105 Citizen Participation Plan; Local Governments (24 CFR Part 91, Section 91.105), each entitlement jurisdiction must adopt a Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth its CDBG program policies and procedures to encourage community involvement; and B. The City Council encourages the participation of all of its residents particularly low and moderate income persons, non-English speaking persons and persons with special needs in the development of the City's CDBG program; and C. The City Council has reviewed and approved the proposed City of Temecula Citizen Participation Plan. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The proposed action on the Annual Action Plan (2016-2017) is exempt from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and specifically 24 CFR 58.34(a)(1) because the Citizen Participation Plan is a resource identification study and the development of plans and strategies for the prioritization and funding of proposed programs through CDBG and the proposed action involves the feasibility and planning studies to determine prioritization and CDBG funding to begin the development of certain projects. The potential projects discussed in the proposed actions that might involve physical activity will be reviewed under NEPA or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the development of those projects. The proposed action is also exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 and 15378(b)(4). Section 4. 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 28th day of June, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Notice of Public Hearing and Request for Community Participation THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 In accordance with the federal regulations, the City of Temecula wishes to inform residents and all interested parties of the following two public hearings: 1) Receive public comments on the draft Citizen Participation Plan for involving the public in the development and implementation of the City's Community Development Block Grant program. Consider comments and adopt the Citizen Participation Plan. 2) Receive public comments on the development of a fair housing assessment for the City. A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Citywide Proposal: Receive public comments on the draft Citizen Participation Plan, adopt Citizen Participation Plan and receive public comments on the development of a fair housing assessment for the City. Environmental: Exempt from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) per 24 CFR 58.34(a)(1) since both action involve the development of plans and strategies and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) for the same reason. All potential projects involving physical activity will be reviewed under NEPA or CEQA as the projects are studied and developed. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the Citizen Participation Plan at the time of hearing. Persons may also submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing on the development of the fair housing assessment. The assessment will be developed over the next several months and will include surveys, community meetings and consultation with those persons and groups having an interest in addressing fair housing. Any petition forjudicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of,which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The Citizen Participation Plan may be viewed at (1) The City of Temecula Public Library at 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA; (2)Temecula Civic Center, Community Development Department, at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA; and (3) on the City's website at www.citvoftemecula.org. If you have questions, or would like to submit written comments, please direct comments to Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Senior Management Analyst, City of Temecula, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, or by email at Iynn.lehner(a�cityoftemecula.org. PLACE OF HEARINGS City Council Chambers 41000 Main Street Temecula, California DATE OF HEARING June 28, 2016 TIME OF HEARING 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard All residents are also invited to the following COMMUNITY MEETINGS concerning the HUD Assessment of Fair Housing planning process: PLACE OF MEETINGS Conference Center 41000 Main Street Temecula, California MEETING DATES/TIMES June 29, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. June 29, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. July 30, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. All residents are invited to complete the City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey at: https://www.surveVmonkeV.com/r/TemeculaEng. A Spanish language version of the survey is available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TemeculaSP. It is the objective of the City to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) of 1990 and the ADA Amendment Act of 2008, the Fair Housing Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act in all respects. If you require public documents in an accessible format, the City will make reasonable efforts to accommodate your request. "If you require a disability-related accommodation to attend or participate in a hearing or meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the City Clerk at least 48 hours prior to the meeting at 951-694-6444. All sites selected for public review are accessible to the physically disabled. Aviso de Audiencia P(iblica Y Peticion para Participacion Comunitaria AYUNTAMIENTO DE LA CIUDAD DE TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 De conformidad con el reglamento federal, el Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula, desea informar a los residentes y a todos los interesados de las siguientes dos audiencias publicas: 1) Recibir comentarios publicos sobre el borrador del Plan de Participacion Ciudadana para implicar al publico en la elaboracion a implementacion del programa de Subsidios Globales para el Desarrollo Comunitario del Ayuntamiento. Considerar los comentarios y adoptar el Plan de Participacion Ciudadana. 2) Recibir comentarios publicos sobre la elaboracion de una evaluacion de la vivienda justa para la ciudad. UNA AUDIENCIA PUBLICA ha sido programada ante el CONCEJO MUNICIPAL de la ciudad para considerar el asunto(s) descritos a continuacion. Solicitante: Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula Ubicacion: Por toda la ciudad Propuesta: Recibir comentarios publicos sobre el borrador del Plan de Participacion Ciudadana, adoptar el Plan de Participacion Ciudadana y recibir comentarios publicos sobre la elaboracion de una evaluacion de la vivienda justa para la ciudad. Ambiental: Exentos de la Ley Nacional de Politica Ambiental (NEPA) por 24 CFR 58.34(a)(1), ya que ambas medidas implican el desarrollo de planes y estrategias y exentos de la Ley de Calidad Ambiental del Estado de California (CEQA) conforme a las Directrices de CEQA Seccion 15061(b)(3) por la misma razon. Todos los posibles proyectos que impliquen actividad fisica seran examinados bajo NEPA o CEQA una vez que los proyectos sean estudiados y desarrollados. Cualquier persona podra presentar comentarios por escrito al Concejo Municipal del Ayuntamiento de la ciudad antes de la audiencia o puede presentarse y ser escuchado ya se por su apoyo u oposicion a la aprobacion del Plan de Participacion Ciudadana a la hora de la audiencia. Las personas tambien pueden presentar comentarios por escrito al Concejo Municipal antes de la audiencia sobre la elaboracion de la evaluacion de la vivienda justa. La evaluacion se elaborara en los proximos meses a incluira encuestas, reuniones comunitarias y consultas con personas y grupos que tengan interes en abordar el tema de vivienda justa. Cualquier peticion de revision judicial de la decision del Concejo Municipal del Ayuntamiento debera ser presentada dentro del tiempo requerido, y controlados por, Secciones 1094.5 y 1094.6 del Codigo de Procedimiento Civil del Estado de California. En cualquier forma tal accion o procedimiento solicitando la revision judicial que se ataca o se intenta establecer aparte, o anular cualquier decision del Concejo Municipal del Ayuntamiento, quedara limitada a las cuestiones planteadas en la audiencia o en la correspondencia escrita entregada al Secretario Municipal del Ayuntamiento, en o antes de la audiencia publica descritas en este aviso. EI Plan de Participacion Ciudadana puede verse en (1) la Biblioteca Publica de la Ciudad de Temecula, 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA; (2) en el Centro Civico de Temecula, Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA; y(3) en el sitio web de la ciudad en www.citvoftemecula.org. Si usted tiene preguntas o desea presentar sus comentarios por escrito, por favor envie sus comentarios a Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Analista de Administracion Superior, Ciudad de Temecula, Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, o por correo electronico a Iynn.lehner(a�cityoftemecula.org. LUGAR DE LA AUDIENCIA Camara del Concejo Municipal 41000 Main Street Temecula, California FECHA DE LA AUDIENCIA Junio 28, 2016 HORA DE LA AUDIENCIA 7:00 PM o un poco despues de que el asunto pudo haberse escuchado Todos los residentes tambien estan invitados a las siguientes REUNIONES COMUNITARIAS concernientes a la Evaluacion de HUD del proceso de planificacion de Vivienda Justa: LUGAR DE LAS REUNIONES Centro de Conferencias 41000 Main Street Temecula, California FECHAS / HORARIOS Junio 29, 2016 a las 4:00 p.m. Junio 29, 2016 a las 6:00 p.m. Julio 30, 2016 a las 10:00 a.m. Todos los residentes estan invitados a completar la Encuesta de Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula en el sitio web: https:Hsurveymonkey.com/TemeculaEng. Una version en espahol de la encuesta esta disponible en el sitio web: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TemeculaSP. EI Ayuntamiento tiene como objetivo cumplir en todo con respecto a la Seccion 504 de la Ley de Rehabilitacion de 1973, tal y como se enmendo, la Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades(ADA)de 1990 y la Ley de Enmienda a ADA de 2008, la Ley de Vivienda Justa, y la Ley de Barreras Arquitectonicas. Si usted necesita documentos publicos en un formato accesible, el Ayuntamiento hara to posible dentro de to razonable para dar cabida a su peticion. "Si usted requiere acomodo especial debido a alguna discapacidad para asistir o participar en una audiencia o junta, incluyendo aparatos auxiliares o servicios, por favor comuniquese a la Oficina del Secretario Municipal por to menos 48 horas antes de la junta al (951)694-6444. Todos los lugares seleccionados para la revision publica son accesibles a las personas con discapacidades fisicas. 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country JOG, City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Thank you for taking part in this survey! The City of Temecula is preparing the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan and an Assessment of Fair Housing as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This Resident Survey will be provide input from the community regarding fair housing, affordable housing, community development, economic development and other needs of its residents. The Consolidated Plan allows Temecula to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds to enhance the quality of life of its residents. This survey should take about 5-7 minutes to complete. Your responses will be confidential and only used together with all of the responses. The survey result will be incorporated in the City's Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing report. Your responses to these questions are an essential component of Temecula's planning process. Should you need assistance or have questions regarding the survey, please contact Dean Huseby, CDBG Consultant at dhuseby@mdg-Idm.com. 1. Do you currently live in the City of Temecula? Yes No 1 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Housing Satisfaction 2. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your home or apartment, on a scale from 1-4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Dissatisfied" and 4 indicates "Extremely Satisfied"? N/A - I do not live in 1.Extremely Dissatisfied 2.Dissatisfied 3.Satisfied 4. Extremely Satisfied Temecula If extremely dissatisfied or dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are not satisfied with your home or apartment: 2 3. If you could change one thing about your current living situation, what would it be? ❑ I wouldn't change anything about my current living situation. n 1 currently rent, but would like to buy/own my home. U I would live in a different part of Temecula. ❑ I own a home, and would like to sell. ❑ I would like to live in a different community other than Temecula. ❑ Other(please specify) L 3 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Housing Dissatisfaction 4. If dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are dissatisfied with your home or apartment: 1. 2. 3. 4 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Housing Satisfaction 5. Do you currently rent or own your home? Rent Own Other(please specify) 5 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Homeowner Questions 6. Do you currently owe more money on your home than it is worth? 0 Yes 0 No O 1 don't know 7. How concerned are you about your home going into foreclosure on a scale from "1" to "4," where 1 indicates "Not at all concerned" and 4 indicates "Extremely Concerned?" 1.Not at all Concerned 2.Somewhat Concerned 3.Concerned 4.Extremely Concerned 6 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country 400 All City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Renter Questions 8. How difficult or easy was it for you to find a rental unit you could afford in Temecula on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Difficult" and 9 indicates "Extremely Easy"? 1. Extremely Difficult 2.Difficult 3. Easy 4.Extremely Easy 0 9. If you want to buy a home in Temecula, why haven't you? (Select all that apply.) 0 1 do not have enough money for a down payment. 0 1 cannot afford a mortgage. 0 1 cannot afford the maintenance costs associated with homeownership. 0 1 have poor credit. 0 1 cannot find a home I want to buy. 0 1 plan to move to another city. 0 Not applicable; I do not want to buy a home. Other(please specify) 7 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country 2% City ofTemecula FairHousingand Consolidated Housing and Community Development Needs Consider the needs in Temecula. Select the top three needs within each category of eligible activities. Do not choose more than three per category. * 10. Community Facilities (Choose up to three) FI Senior Centers U Park & Recreational Facilities Fire Stations & Equipment ❑ Youth Centers F-] Health Care Facilities Libraries Child Care Centers ❑ Community Centers ❑ No need in this category * 11. Infrastructure (Choose up to three) Drainage Improvement Street Lighting No need in this category n Water/Sewer Improvement Sidewalk Improvements Street/Alley Improvement [ ADA Improvements (sidewalk ramps, accessible parking spaces, etc.) 8 * 12. Special Needs (Choose up to three) ❑ Centers/Services for Disabled ❑ Substance Abuse Services Neglected/Abused Children n Accessibility Improvements ❑ Homeless Shelters/Services Center and Services Family Self-Sufficiency Domestic Violence Services [ HIV/AIDS Centers & Services Services No need in this category 13. Community Services (Choose up to three) Senior Activities [ Transportation Services ❑ Mental Health Services Youth Activities [J Anti-Crime Programs ❑ Legal Services ❑ Child Care Services ❑ Health Services ❑ No need in this category 14. Neighborhood Services (Choose up to three) Tree Planting Code Enforcement ❑ No need in this category Trash & Debris Removal [1 Parking Facilities Graffiti Removal [ Cleanup of Abandoned Lots and Buildings 15. Businesses and Jobs (Choose up to three) Start-up Business Assistance L, Employment Training Commercial/Industrial LJ Small Business Loans ElFacade Improvements Rehabilitation Job Creation/Retention Business Mentoring No need in this category 9 * 16. Housing (Choose up to three) ❑ Accessibility Improvements ❑ Housing for Disabled Energy Efficiency (ramps, wheelchair lifts, grab Improvements bars, handrails, visual door Senior Housing bells and smoke/carbonHousing for Former Foster Housing for Large Families (5+ monoxide alarms) people) Youth Owner-Occupied Housing Fair Housing Services LJ Housing for Family Unification Improvements/Rehabilitation [I No need in this category Lead-Based Paint Testing and Rental Housing Improvements Abatement / Rehabilitation Homeownership Purchase Assistance Affordable Rental Housing 10 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Fair Housing Choice Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, or any other arbitrary factor. As part of the planning process, the City of Temecula must analyze the factors associated with housing choice and discrimination. Please respond to the following questions: 17. Do you believe housing discrimination exists in your neighborhood? Yes No 18. Have you ever experienced discrimination in obtaining or maintaining housing? Yes No 11 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country IF As City ofTemecula FairHousingand Consolidated Housing Discrimination If you feel you may have been discriminated against, please contact the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County at (951) 371-6518. The services provided by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County are free of charge and are available to all residents. 19. Who do you believe discriminated against you? Landlord/Property Manager Real Estate Agent Mortgage Lender Mortgage Insurer Other(please specify) 12 20. On what basis do you believe you were discriminated against? 0 Race 0 Color 0 National Origin 0 Gender 0 Age 0 Religion 0 Familial Status (ex. single-parent) 0 Disability n Other(please specify) 21. If you believe you have experienced housing discrimination, did you report it? Yes No 13 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Housing Discrimination 22. Why did you decide not to report the housing discrimination? O Don't know where to report O Too much trouble O Afraid of retailiation O Don't believe it makes any difference Other(please specify) CJ 14 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Employment 23. Is the individual who typically serves as the primary source of income for your household currently employed? 0 Yes, employed 0 No, unemployed and currently seeking employment O No, unemployed and not seeking employment n Retired 15 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country ADA As City ofTemecula FairHousingand Consolidated Demographic Information 24. Just for classification purposes, which category best describes your total annual household income? Less than $10,000 $35,001 to $50,000 0 $100,001 to $125,000 $10,000 to $25,000 0 $50,001 to $75,000 0 More than $125,000 $25,001 to $35,000 0 $75,001 to $100,000 25. What is your ethnicity? Hispanic Non-Hispanic 16 26. What is your race? (Mark all that apply) American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Other(please specify) 27. Are there children living in your home that are younger than 18 years of age? Yes No 28. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? 1 people 0 4 people (L, 7 people 2 people 0 5 people 0 8 or more people 3 people 0 6 people 17 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Special Needs 29. Do any members of your household have a mental or physical disability? O Yes, mental disability O Yes, physical disability O Yes, both mental and physical disability O No 18 12 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Special Needs 30. Does your current home meet the needs of the disabled members of your household? Yes No (Please describe what is needed to meet the needs of the disabled household member(s) in the comment box below) Other(please specify) 19 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country As City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Area of Residence * 31. Please list the zip code or area of Temecula you live in: 20 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country JOG, City • Temecula FairHousingand Consolidated Thank You Thank you for participating in this survey!If you have any questions about the survey, the Assessment of Fair Housing or the Consolidated Plan,please contact Dean Huseby at dhuseby@mdg-ldm.com. Please return this survey to: City of Temecula Community Development Dept. 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 21 HUD Map 1 — Top Races/Ethnicities in the City of Temecula (2010) OMNTemecula{CDBG} .� Name:Map 1-RaceiEthnicdy • 1 • •• +e• •° Description:Current racelethnicity dot density map 1• a n for Jurisdiction and Region with a.. n RIECAPs Jurisdiction:Temecula(CDBG) Region:Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario,CA � • � - .' - • • P.aub.�Rry Legend TOG ' •moi`' •J • Dot Value:1 dot= 75 ff Temecula Dem ographi cs 2010 I d R..go.n • • • 7 Dot=75 ., • • White,Non-Hispanic 4 • �jy Black,Nan-Hispanic 5 • - Tom:„ ,� rup J Native American,Non-Hispanic • - • • \ , ._ff... • key-... ..S$. c�C • � yt`3 AsianlPacifc Islander,Non-Hispanic Fz.l, 4{s v n46 .• ?'�Hispanic s.3 a'• °a• ji`,�Other,No 'R-d W,,16• TRACT •�� ��dl].ar`w� •h a r RIECAP II • h• - � -F � # n X11 " a.SanGIS.Esri,HERE;DeLorrne,NGA,USGS r r r r Additional questions?View the user guide here. The top six races/ethnicities in the City of Temecula are White, Non-Hispanic; Black, Non-Hispanic; Native American , Non-Hispanic; Asian/Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic; Hispanic; Other, Non-Hispanic.They are evenly dispersed throughout the City. HUD Map 3 — Top 5 National Origins of Immigrants in the City of Temecula InformationMap Temecula(CDBG)[ Name:Map 3-National Odgin zDescription:Current national origin(5 most populous)dot density map for = Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs a J'unsdiction:Temecula(CDBG) r% Region:Riverside-San Bernardino-Ordario,CA ` tdr,x G Paul,Ra Legend TOC Dot Value:1 dot +� Temecula ,d a National Origin(Top 5 in Descending Order) Via, ¢ t Dot=30 People - Spt,Pak y1 Mexico Philippines d rTtury IS u'•, i 'n .. 4Korea e J EI Salvador QIP aT ip12 P -liell� India -e TRACT . R.ed H—k Golf Club Qx RIECAP b I a Jo a rne.... zr � e Ada - hod aide,SanG65,Esri,HERE,DeLom7e,NGn,uS+:aS `_ `l- +I Additional questions?View the user guide here.. The top 5 national origins of immigrants in Temecula are Mexico, Philippines, Korea, EI Salvador, and India.Temecula is a diverse city, and diversity is spread evenly throughout the community. HUD Map 4 — Limited English Proficiency Residents in the City of Temecula, Top 5 Languages Temecula(CDBG) Name:Map 4-LEP Description:LEP persons(5 most commonly used languages)for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Jurisdiction:Temecula[CDBG] Region:Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontano,CA 9 -- ° I - Legend TOC - Dot Value:t dot= 40 n m ��cdo Temecula Limited English Proficiency(Top 5 in Descending Order} rnnatd Re gan 1 Dot=40 People Sports Perk. Spanish Tagalog .s, wy Korean i Chinese Thai TRACT - Fdrl ari'k RlECAP h-— Pec hon a r #e,SanGIS,.Esri,HERE;Del-orme,NGA,USGS .'I �. r r r Additional questions?Viewtheuser guide This map represents limited English proficiency residents within the City. The top five languages spoken in these homes are Spanish, Tagalog, Korean, Chinese, and Thai.There is relatively equal distribution throughout the City, with a minor concentration along Rancho California Road. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Item No . 26 Approvals ������,,rr City Attorney /'�/ Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Community Development Director DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Principal Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following are the highlights for the Community Development Department for the month of May 2016. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases: In May, Planning received 21 new applications, including 4 pre-applications, and conducted 7 Public Hearings. A detailed account of current planning activities is attached to this report. Audi Dealership: On February 18, 2015, staff received a pre-application for a 37,000 square foot Audi dealership to be located on Temecula Center Drive, adjacent to 1-15 and south of the existing Mercedes-Benz of Temecula dealership. A Development Plan application was filed for the project on April 6,2015. A community meeting was held with the Harveston community on March 25,2015 to discuss the plans for the dealership. Approximately 20 Harveston residents attended the meeting and were positive about the addition of the Audi dealership to the community. A Supplemental EIR was prepared and went out for public review from July 20, through September 8, 2015. A second community meeting was held with the Harveston community on August 13, 2015, to discuss the findings of the Supplemental EIR and to provide updates on the project. The Planning Commission approved Audi on October 21,2015. Construction began on April 26,2016. Vertical construction is anticipated to begin in August 2016 and construction is anticipated to be completed in early March 2017. A ground breaking ceremony is being planned for mid-July or early August 2016. (FISK) Temecula Gateway: On November 3, 2014, staff received applications related to the proposed Temecula Gateway project. The proposed project will consist of a Planned Development - 1 - Overlay/Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to Community Commercial and the zoning designation to Planned Development Overlay 14, a Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the creation of seven lots from four, a Development Plan to allow for the construction of four commercial buildings totaling approximately 23,666 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an automobile service station with a corresponding carwash and convenience store that will serve alcohol, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drive-thru for a restaurant. The City has entered into an agreement with Michael Baker International/PMC to conduct an Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Draft EIR has been circulated. The review period will end July 14, 2014. (JONES) Cypress Ridge: On December 21, 2015, staff received applications Development Plan to construct 245 market rate residential units in the form of duplex, triplex, attached and detached cluster units. The project will be located on the northeast corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road. Along with the Development Plan are applications for a Tentative Tract Map(for condo purposes), a Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay, and a General Plan Amendment. The applicant is also proposing to upgrade Pala Park to include amenities and play equipment for special needs. (JONES) Temecula Promenade Renovation: On December 3, 2015, staff received an application for a Major Modification to the Promenade Mall to convert a portion of the existing enclosed retail mall (Macy's wing) to an open-air shopping experience. In addition, two new restaurants will be constructed adjacent to the Macy's wing in the existing mall parking lot. Modifications to the existing mall area include removal of the roof, construction of open air concourse/plazas, addition of new exterior wall finishes with new tenant storefronts, new decorative paving, landscaping, lighting and amenities in public areas.Additional site changes include modifications to the access/circulation at the Ring Road and Promenade Mall South, adjacent parking lot, and restriping of parking areas throughout the site. Staff met with the applicant and with the Promenade City Council Subcommittee on January 11, 2016 and the Planning Commission Promenade Subcommittee on February 25, 2016 to discuss the plans. The Planning Commission approved the project on April 20, 2016. (KITZEROW) Altair Specific Plan: On November 12, 2013, City Council approved an Entitlement Processing Agreement with Ambient Communities (Developer) to process extensive land use entitlements for the 270 acre property located west of Old Town including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ambient Communities is proposing a mixed-use development comprised of residential single-family and multi-family units, as well as retail/commercial, open space, and institutional uses. Staff is currently reviewing a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Report and has prepared an Initial Study. The City entered into an agreement with Environmental Science Associates in July 2014 to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR).An EIR Scoping Meeting was held on December 3,,2014. Keyser Marston Associates has prepared a fiscal impact analysis for the project. Staff is working through environmental issues associated with the MSHCP and wildlife corridors as well as negotiating the Development Agreement. A Draft EIR has been circulated, and is out for public review. The comment period ends June 17, 2016. A Planning Commission workshop was scheduled for June 6, 2016. A City Council Workshop is tentatively scheduled to be held at the end of July 2016. (PETERS) Temecula Creek Inn (TCI)Specific Plan: On February 23, 2016, the City Council approved a new contract with Michael Baker Incorporated (formerly RBF) to complete an Environmental Impact - 2 - Report (EIR) for a proposed Specific Plan at the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course and Resort. JC Resorts is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Plan for a hotel expansion. This project also includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis to evaluate the project's potential impacts on the City's General Fund. Since 2008, the Developer has modified the site plan and project description to address concerns regarding site layout, number of dwelling units, traffic impacts, avoiding cultural resources, deciding whether or not to include multi- family, debate about a Development Agreement, and timing of the hotel expansion. As a result of the changes, City Staff requested the applicant to complete a pre-application to make a final determination on the site plan and project description in an effort to move the project forward. Pre- application number PR15-1239 resulted in a revised final project description to include 385 single family dwelling units reducing the current 27-hole golf course to an 18-hole golf course resort and community on 305 acres located 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. The Specific Plan proposes four Planning Areas: Planning Area 1 includes an expansion of the existing hotel by 99 rooms from 128 to 227 guest rooms, and the addition of a spa and banquet facilities totaling 153,837 square feet. Planning Areas 2-4 accommodate the 385 single family homes. Planning Area 5 consists of the golf course. For recordkeeping purposes,the project has been assigned new 2016 Planning Application (PA) numbers, (which replace the 2008 PA numbers), in order to correspond to the new project description and EIR contract with Michael Baker Incorporated. Staff is currently reviewing a draft fiscal impact analysis. A Draft EIR is anticipated to be circulated during Fall 2016. (PETERS) Temecula Valley Hospital: City Council approved the Temecula Valley Hospital project on January 22, 2008. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital bed tower was received from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) on July 19, 2013. United Health Services obtained State licensing to open the hospital for patients on October 14, 2013. On May 31, 2013, staff received a Major Modification application to modify the site plan and heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from an area nearthe northeast corner of the hospital building. UHS indicated that the heliport needs to be relocated based on concerns from the FAA and the aeronautical division of Caltrans. UHS proposed two phases of movement for the heliport: Phase I would place the heliport to the west of the hospital building, in one of the parking lot areas. Phase II would place the heliport on the roof of the second hospital tower. In both cases, the proposed locations result in a change to the flight path that move it away from the Madera Vista residential project and changes the path to either head directly into or away from the prevailing wind direction (rather than perpendicular to the prevailing winds), as directed by the FAA and Caltrans. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA). In July 2014, the applicant indicated intentions to add a 5,000 square foot facilities maintenance building to the hospital site. Staff has provided information regarding this new building to ESA for analysis in the SEIR, and the 45-day public review was from November 12, 2014 through December 29, 2014. The project was reviewed at the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and received a 4-0 vote (Guerriero absent) recommending approval. Staff has worked with the applicant's consultant and ESA to respond to comments received from the community at the Planning Commission hearing and has worked with the applicant's consultant to prepare additional graphics for use at the City Council hearing. The project was scheduled for the July 28, 2015, City Council hearing but was continued off calendar so that staff and the Supplemental EIR consultant could make revisions to the Supplemental EIR to address comments received from Ray Johnson on July 22, 2015. The Revised Draft Supplemental EIR was available for public review from February 8, 2016 thru March 23, 2016. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at their May 4, 2016 hearing and the City Council approved the project at the May 24, 2016 hearing. (FISK) - 3 - LONG RANGE PLANNING Uptown Temecula Specific Plan: The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area encompasses approximately 560 acres and is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan is based upon the eight visioning recommendations of the community and as directed by the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council along with the certification of the Final EIR on November 17, 2015. Staff is developing the scope of work for the Request for Proposal for the Streetscape Beautification Plan for the Specific Plan area. (WEST) Hike Bike Temecula (Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update): On May 14, 2013, City Council awarded a contract to KTU+A to update the City's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. A community workshop was held on October 26, 2013, and attendees provided feedback on bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, hiking paths, and equestrian connections. Community input was also collected through a survey via the project website www.hikebiketemecula.org. A Steering Committee meeting was held on February 25, 2014, with over 30 participants in attendance. The focus of the meeting was to summarize the survey results and to get feedback on proposed improvements in Old Town. The Old Town improvements include sharrows(shared bike lane markings) on Old Town Front Street, Bicycle Friendly Community signs, and strategically placed bike racks. On March 25, 2014, City Council approved an amendment to the contract that included Phase II of the Master Plan Update and additional sidewalk analysis. Phase I concluded with a community walk-ride event on May 10, 2014, highlighting priority locations for future trails and bike lanes based on the community's feedback. Presentations to the Community Service Commission,Traffic Public Safety Commission, and Planning Commission occurred during April and May. The Master Plan is scheduled to go to City Council on June 28. (PETERS) SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SARDA) & AFFORDABLE HOUSING Town Square Marketplace: On January 13, 2015, City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement(ENA)with Truax Development(Truax) in order to negotiate the disposition and development of the two, currently Successor Agency owned, vacant lots in front of the Civic Center, flanking the Town Square Park on the north and south sides of Main Street. On June 23, 2015, City Council extended the term of the ENA for an additional six months. While both Truax Development and the City have been negotiating in good faith, the complexities of the project require that the ENA be extended to allow for additional work to be completed. Upon agreeing to terms, the City and Truax envision drafting a disposition and development agreement that will be brought back before the Council for approval. The second amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement was approved by City Council on March 8th to extend the term of the agreement. (WATSON) Affordable Housing RFP: The Supportive Housing Subcommittee, formerly Council Members Naggar and Washington, directed staff to issue an RFP to solicit project proposals from interested developers for the construction of an affordable housing development. In late 2015, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency obtained clearance from the Department of Finance on the remaining affordable housing dollars that had been previously"frozen"within the Affordable Housing Fund, gaining complete discretion on the entire affordable housing dollars available to the City, in the amount of$12.4 million. - 4 - In conjunction with the current Supportive Housing Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Naggar and Council Member McCracken, staff issued an RFP to solicit innovative development proposals that address one or more of the following housing needs: seniors, veterans, special needs, transitional, or supportive. Applicants with other housing need specialties may also be considered. The RFP outlines requirements and includes potential City-owned parcels that can be considered for development, but proposals will not be limited to City-owned properties. Uptown Temecula is also encouraged with the new, recently adopted Specific Plan. Projects are encouraged to integrate a mix of uses, as well as market-rate units into projects, where feasible. The RFP closed on May 16th and the City received 20 proposals from interested developers. Keyser Marston Associates,who assisted in the development of the pro forma templates utilized in the RFP, will assist staff in the review and analysis of the proposals. KMA will also prepare interview questions and participate in the developer interviews. (WATSON) Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule: As part of the ongoing wind-down of the former Temecula Redevelopment Agency, the Successor Agency (SARDA) is required to complete a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS)outlining the financial and debt obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. Based on the outstanding obligations that are due in the six month period being reviewed, SARDA makes requests from the Property Tax Trust Fund to make the appropriate payments. On March 2, 2015, the Oversight Board resolution approving ROPS 15-16A was delivered to the California State Department of Finance, the California State Controller, and the Riverside County Auditor Controller per the requirements of the redevelopment dissolution legislation. The ROPS 15-16B was approved by the SARDA Oversight Board in September 2015. The ROPS 16-17 was approved by both the SARDA Board and the Oversight Board in January. (WATSON, LEHNER) Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinance: The City Council adopted the 2014- 2021 General Plan Housing Element Update on January 28,2014, and the City received certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) on March 10, 2014. A project processing schedule has been prepared for the Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinances as required by Programs 1 and 4 of the Housing Element. The Code Amendment will also encompass land use updates as required by Program 3. The project is in the initial planning phase. Staff is currently conducting research and anticipates completing the ordinances for adoption in 2017. (WEST) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CDBG Administration: The City will receive$540,214 in CDBG grant funding for Fiscal Year 2015- 16. The funding will be allocated as follows: 20 percent for program administration ($108,042), 15 percent for public services ($81,032)to be divided evenly between nine non-profit service providers ($7,892 each)and $10,000 to the Fair Housing Council. The remaining 65 percent was allocated for infrastructure improvements. The Old Town Sidewalk Improvement projectwill receive$351,140. In April 2015, the City processed a Substantial Amendment to redirect$160,561 of unspent funds from previous fiscal years. A total of$26,223 was allocated to Habitat for Humanity for the Critical Home Maintenance and Repair Program, $12,000 to GRID Alternatives for the Solar Affordable Housing Program, and $122,338 to the Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Replacement project. The City entered into an agreement with MDG Associates on November 1,2016 forthe administration of CDBG services. - 5 - In preparation for the FY2016-17 application process, and in accordance with our Citizen Participation Plan, staff held two community and technical workshops for potential applicants on December 7, 2015. The application period for the 2016-17 fiscal year was open from December 1 through December 17, 2015. Staff has reviewed 14 applications for eligibility and presented them to the Finance Subcommittee for recommendations on February 9, 2016. City Council approved the Annual Action Plan on April 26, 2016 and staff submitted the plan to HUD. (LEHNER) CDBG Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing: Every five years, the City, as an Entitlement City, is required to prepare an updated Consolidated Plan (ConPlan)and Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The ConPlan and AFH process is designed to help states and local jurisdictions to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The City entered into an agreement with MDG Associates on January 26, 2016. The Consolidated Plan will cover the period July 1, 2017— June 30, 2022. As a part of the ConPlan process, the City must update the Citizen Participation Plan. Its purpose is to provide Temecula residents with an understanding of their role in the development, implementation, and assessment of housing and community development activities in Temecula. The Citizen Participation Plan is set to be adopted by City Council at a public hearing on June 28, 2016. HUD has implemented additional public outreach requirements into the AFH process. In addition to the introduction of the Assessment of Fair Housing at the June 28, 2016 public hearing,three public workshops will be held in conjunction with this process—two on June 29, 2016, and a third on July 30, 2016.A survey has been created to assess resident input regarding fair housing and affordable housing. The public will also have an opportunity to review the AFH 30 days prior to the City Council public hearing for approval of the AFH on September 13, 2016. The Assessment of Fair Housing is due to HUD on October 4, 2016 or no later than 270 days prior to the implementation of the 2017—2022 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is due to HUD May 17, 2017 and becomes effective July 1, 2017. (LEHNER) ENERGY & CONSERVATION Temecula Energy Efficiency Management (TEEM) Fund: The TEEM Fund is a self-sustaining fund that utilizes rebate incentives while also re-directing annual utility cost savings from energy efficiency projects into the fund. City Council established the fund in June 2013, with an initial deposit of $119,728.90 in SCE and SCG rebates. As energy efficiency projects are completed, rebates are deposited into the fund for future energy efficiency project. The current fund balance is now $196,797.00. Staff worked with Public Financial Management, funded through the Western Riverside Energy Partnership, to develop a policy manual for the TEEM Fund, focusing on policies and methodologies for determining the amount of utility savings to be deposited into the fund after projects are completed. (WEST) Western Riverside Energy Leadership Partnership: This Partnership, consisting of eleven Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) member cities, Southern California Edison (SCE), and Southern California Gas (SCG), provides incentives for participants to develop energy efficiency programs. Staff completed a comprehensive energy audit of the Temecula Library with assistance from the Partnership. The audit identified 9 energy efficiency measures which could - 6 - save an estimated 107,429 kWh annually,which also equates to an estimated annual cost savings to the City of $17,278. If all efficiency measures are implemented, the City would receive approximately $20,952 in rebate incentives from SCE and SCG. Implementing these measures would allow the City to achieve Platinum Level in the Partnership kWh savings requirements, giving the City higher rebate incentives for future energy efficiency measures. Staff is also working with NRG EV Services to install an electric vehicle fast charging station in the 6th Street Parking Lot. The fast charging station will complement the existing electric vehicle charging stations in the 6th Street Parking Lot and the Civic Center Parking Garage, by adding fast charging capabilities allowing drivers to add 50 miles of range in 15 minutes. (WEST) Solid Waste and Recycling Program: Staff manages the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Agreement with CR&R and acts as a liaison between the City, CR&R, and their customers. City staff and CR&R coordinate two Citywide Clean-up events each year for residents to dispose of household waste and large miscellaneous items that do not fit into the standard residential trash receptacle. The event is open to City of Temecula residents only. Staff also assists with outreach for the Riverside County Mobile Household Hazardous Waste Collection events and the Backyard Composting Workshops. The Residential Organics Recycling Program was adopted by the City Council in June 2015 to be implemented in 2016. Outreach to City residents began on April 18th, 2016 with information on the City's website, Public Information Channel (Ch-3), the City's Facebook page, and a letter mailed to each resident/home. Distribution of the kitchen pails for food scraps took place at the April 23,2016 Citywide Clean-up and on April 30, 2016 at the Field Operations Center. For those residents that were unable to attend either distribution event, kitchen pails are available at the Civic Center. Through Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), grants funds are available to cities and counties on an annual basis, to be used for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. Staff will be using grant funds to purchase recycling receptacles for City parks. The purchase of recycling receptacles will improve recycling opportunities at City parks and support the State's objective of reaching and maintaining an 80 percent recycling rate for all California Refund Value beverage containers. (WEST) BUILDING & SAFETY Inspections: Forthe month of May, Building and Safetyconducted 1,596 inspections. Therewere an average of 76 inspections per day or 21.71 per day, per inspector. Permits: During the month of May, Building and Safety issued 294 building permits. Of these permits, 14 were new single family, 54 multi-family units and 45 were photovoltaic permits. Some of these permits from this month included: New Commercial Buildings Temecula Medical Office Building — 31775 De Portola Road Tenant Improvements Nuristan Food —27287 Nicolas Road Tuesday Morning —26447 Ynez Road National Merchants Association —43620 Ridge Park Drive - 7 - Non-Construction Certificate of Occupancy Pita Chicks —42197 Margarita Road Daiko Sushi and Grill —27371 Jefferson Avenue Transplant for Life —41743 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 104 CODE ENFORCEMENT During the month of May, Code Enforcement responded to 101 web complaints. In addition, the division opened 47 code cases and forwarded 30 referrals to Public Works, Police,Animal Control, and Fire. Code Enforcement also pulled 500 non-conforming signs in the community and assisted 40 people at the Community Development Counter. City Code Officers re-inspected 650 properties and prepared 39 warrants for weed abatement. Detailed Code Enforcement case activity can be found in the following chart: TYPE OF CODE CASE TYPE TOTAL Abandoned or Inoperable Vehicle 4 Vacant Home/ Property Maintenance/ Rodent/ Mold 4 Business or Home Occupation w/o license/CUP 3 Trash and Debris/ Dumping 6 Overgrown Vegetation /Weeds/ Fire Hazard 4 Green Pool/Vector Control 6 Graffiti 2 Noise/Nuisance/Animal Control 2 Trailer/ RV Stored/Boat 7 Construction w/o Permit/Building Code 2 Encroach Public ROW/Trash Cans 1 Other/Homeless Encampment 1 Signs Pulled -Violations 2 Public Safety& Health 3 TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES 47 Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties. The following charts demonstrate the past six months of activities in Temecula. Residential Foreclosure Tracking December January February March April May 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 DEFAULT 81 84 81 83 86 78 - 8 - FORECLOSED 45 60 64 68 70 66 REO 90 81 83 81 76 70 TOTALS 216 225 228 232 232 214 Commercial Foreclosure Tracking December January February March April May 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 DEFAULT 2 2 2 2 1 1 FORECLOSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 REO 10 10 10 9 11 11 TOTALS 12 12 12 11 12 12 ATTACHMENT: Current Planning Activity Report - 9 - PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0657 960-010-044 Eric Jones 05/02/2016 Daryl Farnbach (951)552-3516 VAIL Plan Review HEADQUARTE RS Case Title/Description: Vail Headquarters Major Temporary Use Permit:A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow a weekly farmers market and family fun fair to be held at the Vail Ranch Headquarters site located at 32115 Temecula Parkway. PA16-0658 954-200-026 Jaime Cardenas 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 Robert Roach Approved Case Title/Description: The Island Pool Guys(Home Occupation) PA16-0660 920-161-050 Eric Jones 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 Lydia Figueroa Approved Case Title/Description: Lydia Figueroa Services(Home Occupation) PA16-0662 944-290-027 James Atkins 05/02/2016 Larry Canale (951)760-0760 Rancho View Plan Review Professional Center Case Title/Description: ALDI Market MOD: a Minor Modification to PA15-1844 Conditional Use Permit to allow for ALDI Market to acquire a Type 20 Off-Sale Beer and Wine ABC License.The site is located on the south side of Rancho California Road, approximately 500 feet west of Moraga Road. PA16-0663 910-272-033 Scott Cooper 05/03/2016 05/16/2016 Reginald(Reg) (949)955-1919 Kaiser Approved Hernandez Foundation Health Case Title/Description: Kaiser Paint Minor Mod:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to allow the existing Kaiser Medical Office Building to match the appearance of the new Kaiser Medical Office Building (PA15-0151). The project is located at 27309 Madison Avenue. PA16-0666 959-090-008 Scott Cooper 05/03/2016 05/11/2016 James Matthews (310)344-6348 HD Dev Approved Case Title/Description: Home Depot MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)for the installation of a 210 KW natural fuel cell generator and ancillary equipment at an existing Home Depot located at 32020 Temecula Parkway. PA16-0670 945-080-019 Brandon Rabidou 05/04/2016 05/18/2016 Jennifer Krueger Approved Case Title/Description: Jen Krueger Design (Home Occupation) Page 1 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0673 965-050-030 Dale West 05/04/2016 05/04/2016 Shannon Rowley Approved Case Title/Description: Neverland Parties&Entertainment(Home Occupation) PA16-0674 921-050-021 Scott Cooper 05/04/2016 05/04/2016 Jim Lorimer (602)263-6502 AMERCO Approved REAL ESTATE CO Case Title/Description: U-Haul Doors MOD:A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)for U-Haul to add two exterior overhead doors on the north side of the existing building located at 27941 Jefferson Ave. PA16-0675 953-290-025 James Atkins 05/04/2016 05/04/2016 Daniel Stafford Approved Case Title/Description: Singing Wire Web Design (Home Occupation) PA16-0677 909-270-045 Brandon Rabidou 05/05/2016 Robert Taft (951)541-1738 JEFFERSON Plan Review AVENUE TEMECULA Case Title/Description: Plaza Seville MOD:A 1,900 square foot Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) for Plaza Seville located at 27375 Jefferson Ave PA16-0687 945-201-001 Jaime Cardenas 05/06/2016 05/06/2016 SHAWNA Approved NICHOLS Case Title/Description: Shawna Nichols(Home Occupation) PA16-0689 959-223-017 Jaime Cardenas 05/06/2016 05/13/2016 Ruth Stichter Approved Case Title/Description: Aunt Ruth's Cakes(Home Occupation PA16-0691 960-223-003 Jaime Cardenas 05/06/2016 05/18/2016 Lawrence (Larry) (951)302-7250 Approved Furie Case Title/Description: Furie Garage MOD:A Minor Modifiction (Planning Review Only)for a 504 square-foot detached garage constructed to match the architecture of the existing residence located at 33215 Camino Maraca. PA16-0692 Jaime Cardenas 05/09/2016 05/09/2016 John Marino (951)551-0076 Approved Case Title/Description: Novelties 2000(Home Occupation) PA16-0694 966-094-020 Jaime Cardenas 05/09/2016 05/13/2016 Craig Hicks Approved Case Title/Description: Ultimate Innovations, Inc. (Home Occupation) Page 2 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0696 921-260-022 James Atkins 05/09/2016 Scott Angel (951)797-7000 SONMEZLER Plan Review LLC Case Title/Description: Sonmezler MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)for an employee break area consisting of a 12'x12'alumawood freestanding solid patio cover located at 27423 Ynez Road. PA16-0702 960-172-023 05/10/2016 Natalie Van Plan Review Dusen Case Title/Description: Van D View(Home Occupation) PA16-0705 960-172-004 Jaime Cardenas 05/10/2016 05/10/2016 Bryan Giglio (760)560-6813 Approved Case Title/Description: Greenlife Organic Juice Company(Home Occupation) PA16-0706 960-133-022 05/10/2016 Andy Mofatt Plan Review Case Title/Description: Andy's Rain Gutters(Home Occupation) PA16-0710 909-370-013 Brandon Rabidou 05/10/2016 Jordan Petra (619)444-2182 Cactus Road Plan Review ext 213 Case Title/Description: Remington Industrial DP:A Development Plan for a 53,574 square foot concrete tilt-up 2 story shell industrial building located at 42006 Remington Ave PA16-0712 05/10/2016 Luis Arias Plan Review Case Title/Description: Arias Moving Services, LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0713 944-335-081 Jaime Cardenas 05/10/2016 05/10/2016 Mark Nichols Approved Case Title/Description: Nichols Cleaning(Home Occupation) PA16-0714 965-010-003 Jaime Cardenas 05/10/2016 05/10/2016 Brian Munsey Approved Case Title/Description: The First Formula(Home Occupation) PA16-0715 957-580-033 Brandon Rabidou 05/11/2016 05/11/2016 Justin Ames Approved Case Title/Description: Mackenzie Farms(Home Occupation) PA16-0717 922-291-025 Jaime Cardenas 05/11/2016 05/27/2016 Terrence Pearson (909)772-1828 Hershal Approved Mildred Case Title/Description: Fitzhugh MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to convert the third garage unit at an existing home into additional living space with a bathroom at 30722 Doral Court Page 3 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0725 959-311-020 Jaime Cardenas 05/11/2016 05/11/2016 Kristy Ramsey Approved Case Title/Description: Mon Vie Fashion(Home Occupation) PA16-0730 918-295-009 05/12/2016 David Varela Plan Review Case Title/Description: The Rusty Gypsy(Home Occupation) PA16-0734 James Atkins 05/13/2016 John Evers (909)855-6588 Heritage Plan Review Partners Temecula Case Title/Description: A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to replace existing wood siding with matching stucco to Tower II &III of Tower Plaza Professional Center located at 27393 Ynez Road. PA16-0736 910-300-012 James Atkins 05/13/2016 05/13/2016 Timothy Bunch Approved Case Title/Description: Tuesday Morning MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to allow for an existing shell building to remove the existing primary customer entrance swing-open doors and replace them with automatic sliding doors.The site is located at 26447 Yenz Road. PA16-0739 953-421-015 Scott Cooper 05/16/2016 05/16/2016 George Kilmer Approved Case Title/Description: Beyond General Contracting dba Beyond Handyman Services(Home Occupation) PA16-0741 922-120-011 Brandon Rabidou 05/16/2016 William(Bill) (951)255-1116 Edwin Manske Plan Review Alden Case Title/Description: Shooters PC or N:A Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Shooters to obtain a Type 40 license at 28950 Old Town Front Street PA16-0743 954-173-008 Scott Cooper 05/16/2016 05/16/2016 Ismari Approved Richardson Case Title/Description: Print the Planet(Home Occupation) PA16-0746 920-090-010 Jaime Cardenas 05/16/2016 05/16/2016 Ed Smith, Jr. Approved Case Title/Description: Ed Smith, Jr. (Home Occupation) PA16-0751 922-240-082 Jaime Cardenas 05/17/2016 05/17/2016 Erikka Watts Approved Case Title/Description: Merit Resources(Home Occupation) PA16-0753 05/17/2016 Raymond Plan Review Sanchez Case Title/Description: Bright Star Movies(Home Occupation) Page 4 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0757 965-211-008 Jaime Cardenas 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 Curtis Prince Approved Case Title/Description: Prince iPhone Screen Repair(Home Occupation) PA16-0759 961-450-005 Jaime Cardenas 05/18/2016 05/18/2016 Jorge Maldonado Approved Case Title/Description: Todolatinoeventos(Home Occupation) PA16-0760 961-420-034 Jaime Cardenas 05/18/2016 Maryann Lee (951)212-1364 Denied Case Title/Description: Werk Studio(Home Occupation) PA16-0762 910-320-037 James Atkins 05/18/2016 Dave Madden Temecula PPF Plan Review LLC Case Title/Description: Pieology MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)for Pieology to remove an existing patio cover located on the east side of the building(including the half wall for the patio) and the relocation of the existing entrance from the south side to the east side of the building at an existing site located at 26460 Ynez Road PA16-0763 921-300-007 James Atkins 05/18/2016 06/09/2016 Steve Frandsen (310)820-0585 Rancho Approved California Apartments Case Title/Description: Rancho California Apartments LP Temporary Use Permit:A Temporary Use Permit to allow for the installation of a construction office trailer and six storage units to be used to store construction equipment and materials.The project is located at 29210 Stonewood Road PA16-0768 959-332-020 Jaime Cardenas 05/20/2016 05/24/2016 Kyle Albright Approved Case Title/Description: Pug Blue Ribbon (Home Occupation) PA16-0770 965-151-021 05/20/2016 Gary Sult (760)533-9380 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Asult Productions(Home Occupation) PA16-0775 Jaime Cardenas 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 Terrance Pepin Approved Case Title/Description: Elite Executive Cleaning(Home Occupation) PA16-0777 922-312-012 Brandon Rabidou 05/23/2016 05/25/2016 101 Mobility of 101 Mobility of San (858)800-2820 Erik Hepp Approved San Diego Diego Case Title/Description: Hepp Residence MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to install a vertical wheelchair platform lift on the exterior of an existing residence located at 45584 Masters Drive Page 5 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0778 960-092-010 05/24/2016 Jennifer Paprock (951)285-9860 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Jennifer Paprock Framing(Home Occupation) PA16-0790 954-161-048 Jaime Cardenas 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 JOHNALLEN Approved Case Title/Description: Allen Lawn Aeration Service(Home Occupation) PA16-0793 961-450-005 Jaime Cardenas 05/25/2016 05/26/2016 Approved Case Title/Description: Liquid Tan Studio(Home Occupation) PA16-0794 957-540-028 Jaime Cardenas 05/25/2016 05/27/2016 Carlos Rosillo Approved Case Title/Description: Straight Plastering(Home Occupation) PA16-0795 953-121-039 Jaime Cardenas 05/25/2016 Michael Boucher (951)972-7466 Boyd Trimble Plan Review Case Title/Description: Trimble Room Addition MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)for 498 square-foot room addition to a 1,778 square-foot single family residence located at 41404 Bitter Creek Ct. PA16-0798 921-810-014 James Atkins 05/25/2016 Terry Odle (949)705-0713 COSTCO Plan Review Case Title/Description: Costco Entry MOD: a Minor Modification to allow for Costco to relocate the north entry adjacent to the gas station moving it east towards the warehouse. Other changes include redesigning drive aisles and parking spaces as a result of moving the entry. The site is located at 26610 Ynez Road. PA16-0799 910-420-030 Brandon Rabidou 05/25/2016 Clear Blue Clear Blue Energy TEMECULA Plan Review Energy Corp Corp TOWNE CENTER ASSOC Case Title/Description: Promenade Mall MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to install 321 LED lights on the existing parking lot and street lights at the promenade mall located at 40802 Winchester Road PA16-0802 910-110-088 Scott Cooper 05/26/2016 Damien Pichardo (949)336-1550 Todd Sieja Plan Review Case Title/Description: AT&T Mobility Modification:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)for the replacement of an existing antenna and two antenna radomes,the installation of a surge suppressor and four RRU's. The project is located at 40940 County Center Drive. Page 6 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0803 953-222-014 05/26/2016 Toribio Romo (949)510-2069 Toribio Romo Plan Review Case Title/Description: Romo Residence:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to install a non-habitable exterior enclosed patio room at 32246 Cour Meyney PA16-0806 921-700-011 Brandon Rabidou 05/26/2016 06/09/2016 Kristian Giordano (909)303-7804 Approved Case Title/Description: Temecula Valley Valet, LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0807 957-561-009 05/26/2016 Andrea Travers Plan Review Case Title/Description: Elegant Events byAndi (Home Occupation) PA16-0808 953-543-009 Jaime Cardenas 05/26/2016 05/26/2016 Julia Hess (951)501-9236 Approved Case Title/Description: Julie's Pools(Home Occupation) PA16-0809 965-150-013 Jaime Cardenas 05/26/2016 06/01/2016 Brenda Approved Leavenworth Case Title/Description: Far Above Rubies Ministries(Home Occupation) PA16-0820 962-490-024 Jaime Cardenas 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 Lawrence Approved Beckham Case Title/Description: LC Travel Specialists(Home Occupation) PA16-0821 966-130-012 Matt Peters 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 Carl Harris Approved Case Title/Description: Wall Trim Image(Home Occpation) PA16-0824 957-733-008 Jaime Cardenas 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 Terry De Armond (909)302-5644 Approved Case Title/Description: DeArmond Construction Inc(Home Occupation) PA16-0827 966-130-012 05/31/2016 Margarita Harris (951)541-7532 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Wall Trim Image(Home Occupation) PREAPP16-067 921-330-026 Scott Cooper 05/05/2016 05/19/2016 Jeff Keller (760)580-3655 Ali Pourdastan Completed 9 Case Title/Description: Hidden Pines Pre-App:A pre-application to allow for a new 88 unit assisted living facility to be located on 4 acres at the southeast corner of Margarita Road and Solana Way. Page 7 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PREAPP16-070 Scott Cooper 05/10/2016 05/25/2016 Jerry Lund (626)485-1926 Completed 8 Case Title/Description: Main St. Pedal Coach Pre-App:A Pre-Application to operate a pedal powered "bike-bus"for tours, events, pub crawls, pub-crawls in Old Town. Applicant is proposing for alcohol to be allowed, if brought by the customers onto the bike bus. The bikes do contain an electric assist so all of the power is not supplied directly from the customers. These bikes currently are in operation in other cities in California. PREAPP16-076 922-046-028 Brandon Rabidou 05/18/2016 Brittany (909)868-8419 Baily's Plan Review 5 Mendibles Case Title/Description: Bailey's Market Pre-App:A pre-application for Bailey's to hold a monthly"pop-up" market with local talent, artisans, and local businesses. PREAPP16-079 909-251-003 Scott Cooper 05/24/2016 06/09/2016 Anthony Bennett (858)531-7763 SHAWN E Completed 1 GRUWELL Case Title/Description: Brainy Actz Pre-App.A Pre-Application to allow for an"Escape Room". The use may be categorized as an indoor recreational use. The applicant is proposing 3 locations and is seeking general information on the use and the subsequent City requirements. The initial site considered is 42041 Avenida Alvarado. Page 8 of 8 Item No . 27 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeffrey Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Joseph Greco, Sergeant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of May 2016. PATROL SERVICES Overall calls for police service 3,260 "Priority One" calls for service 55 Average response time for "Priority One" calls 5.65 Minutes VOLUNTEERS Volunteer administration hours 231 Special Events hours 159 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours 805 Reserve officer hours (patrol) 109 Training hours 117 Total Volunteer hours 1147 CRIME PREVENTION Crime prevention workshops/Neighborhood watch meetings conducted 0/0 Safety presentations/Training 1/0 Special events 1 Residential/Business security surveys conducted 0/0 Businesses visited 0 Residences/Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 2/0 Station Tour 2 Planning Review Projects/Temp Outdoor Use Permits 3/2 Sq. Footage of Graffiti Removed 2,714 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT Total customers served 165 Sets of fingerprints taken 60 Police reports filed 15 Citations signed off 20 Total receipts $2,652 SPECIAL TEAMS (POP/ SET) On sight felony arrests 11 On sight misdemeanor arrests 20 Felony arrest warrants served 3 Misdemeanor arrest warrants served 14 Follow-up investigations 27 Parole/Probation Searches 1/7 Pedestrian Checks 75 Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks 27 Crime Free Housing Checks 57 TRAFFIC Citations issued for hazardous violations 1281 Grant funded D.U.I. /Traffic safety checkpoints 4 Grant funded traffic click it or ticket 0 D.U.I. Arrests 13 Non-hazardous citations 255 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations 58 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations 92 Parking citations 99 School Zone 34 Seatbelts 33 Cell Phone Cites 40 Injury collisions 18 INVESTIGATIONS Beginning Caseload 225 Total Cases Assigned 41 Total Cases Closed 43 Search Warrants Served 7 Arrests 2 Out of Custody Filings 2 PROMENADE MALL TEAM Calls for service 491 Felony arrest/filings 3 Misdemeanor arrest/filings 22 Traffic Citations 1 Fingerprints/Livescans 230 Total receipts $6,208 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS Felony arrests 3 Misdemeanor arrests 11 Reports 20 Youth counseled 165 Meetings 111 Item No . 28 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager lL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. City of 9emecuCa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JUNE 26, 2016 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CIRCULATION PROJECTS Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets $658,750 • On June 14, 2016, City Council awarded a Slurry arterial streets (Winchester, Jefferson, and Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Temecula Parkway) with the goal to prolong their Co. useful life and avoid much more costly roadway •Anticipate construction will begin in July 2016 rehabilitation measures Interstate-15 / State Route 79 South $50,646,123 • Processing project approvals through Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 Caltrans Construction of ramp system that will improve •Anticipate soliciting construction bids in early access to Interstate 15 from Temecula Parkway/ fall 2016 State Route 79 South Pavement Rehabilitation Program — $213,000 •Anticipate soliciting construction bids by end Overland Drive of June 2016 Rehabilitation of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Drive Pavement Rehabilitation Program — $395,000 • On May 24, 2016, City Council awarded a Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Pechanga Parkway), PW12-13 Co. Rehabilitation and improvement of pavement • Construction will begin once the Contractor conditions pursuant to the Citywide Pavement secures the Encroachment Permit from Rehabilitation Program Caltrans Pechanga Parkway Widening, PW15-14 $5,000,000 • City Council approved a Professional Widening of Pechanga Parkway between Via Services Agreement for the Design and the Gilberto to North Casino Drive Environmental Document at their meeting on April 26, 2016 • Design is underway, looking at alternatives Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road $92,000 • On June 14, 2016, City Council awarded a Signal Construction Contract to Los Angeles Traffic Provides for the design and construction of Signal Transportation modifications by providing designated left run •Anticipate construction will begin in July 2016 movements from Roripaugh Road onto Winchester Road City ®f 9emecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JUNF.26, 2®16 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (continued) INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Old Town Front Street Pavement and Storm $770,000 • Construction is underway Drain Rehabilitation, PW12-14 • Anticipate completion in early July-2016 Replacement of the cross gutter at the south end of Old Town Front Street with underground pipes; rehabilitate Old Town Front Street from Temecula Parkway to First Street Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 $2,764,093 • Construction began March 28, 2016 Design and construction of a park and ride facility in • Anticipated completion November 2016 the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street PARKS & RECREATION PROJECTS: Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground $648,888 • Notice to Proceed with Design and Enhancement, PW12-20 Fabrication was issued on June 9, 2015 Design and construct a new innovative play area to • Anticipate completion of design plans replace the existing equipment January 2017 • An agreement for construction will be executed at a later date City ®f'1'emecuCa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JUNF-26, 2®16 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED /CURRENT MILESTONES COST MAINTENANCE PROJECTS Citywide Tree Trimming and Maintenance $500,000 . On June 14, 2016, City Council approved Services an Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Annual Agreement for Services Children's Museum $12,000 • Anticipate completion in mid-July 2016 Paint exterior of building and replace rotted trim and portion of exterior wood steps Fire Station #84 $6,000 • This project is complete Paint exterior wrought iron fence around facility Margarita Recreation Center f/k/a Former $22,000 . This project is complete YMCA Building Prepare building for temporary TCSD use. Work includes interior painting, roof patching, carpet cleaning, re-keying and re-certifying fire sprinkler system Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms $73,652.52 . On June 14, 2016, City Council approved and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters an Agreement with Aztec Landscape, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Janitorial, Inc. for Fiscal Year Annual Agreement for Services 2016-17 Landscape Maintenance Services $7,076,607 • On June 14, 2016, City Council approved a Three-Year Agreement with Excel Annual Agreement for Services Landscape, Inc. Margarita Park Splash Pad Signage Estimated . This project is complete Construct and install Eagle Soar signage at entry Cost$4,500 to facility Old Town Parking Garage $6,500 • Anticipate complete in August 2016 Paint the interior of the two public garage stairwells City ®f 9emecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JUNE 28, 2016 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED /CURRENT MILESTONES COST MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (continued) Playground Equipment Enhancement and $275,000 • Priority list and replacement program are Safety Surfacing being prepared Replace aging play structures and associated . Reviewed RFQ Proposals and selected two safety surfacing companies to provide detailed layouts for two parks (Pala Community Park and Nicolas Road Park) Temecula Valley Museum $11,000 • This project is complete Replace all leaking dual glazed windows with UV blocking glass Temecula Valley Museum $10,020 • This project is complete Paint exterior of building and replace rotted fascia boards and portion of exterior wood steps PROJECT NAME ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES BRIEF DESCRIPTION LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DePortola Professional Building . The sewer main and required water main realignment Located at the corner of DePortola Road and Margarita is complete Road . Edison will install a new line on DePortola Road • Anticipate all utility and pavement restoration will be complete by mid-July 2016 Murrieta Creek Restoration Project . Creek restoration has been begun with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside County placement of additional BMP protection and the Flood Control and Water Conservation District establishment of the cement stabilization plant • Creek soil cement sidewall construction has begun Terracina . Anticpate the sewer main segment between Standard Pacific Housing Development in County Pechanga Parkway and Peachtree Street will be complete by mid-August 2016 REQUESTS TO SPEAK City Council Meeting 06/28/16 REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA luau Date: nG��28 I wish to speak on: 0 Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/CSD /SARDA/THA/TPFA(Circle One) Subject: sR locum• o�!'rvc s ❑ Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk pLigE to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: tA',c)oPe Address: . Phone Number: ( If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA luau Date: I wish to speak Q' Public Comment CITY COUN�IL/CSD /SARDA/THA/TPFA(Circle One) Subject: � /% ZeT7 j/ C- L — F] Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against 7 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerkrwill call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and slate you name for the rrd. Name: Address: �� �� � Phone / If you are representing an organization or roupplease giv�� Se name: a1 Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. p�G ; � All information provided is optional. G V � REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: �0 . 2 FO I wish to speak on: Public Comm CITY PCSD/ SARD//A/THA/TPFA (Circle One) Subject: ;� 1 --- Agenda Item No. For E Against [:] N, Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk 2Eigf to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerkrp for to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. / Name: L f I" l y-�-�Gw— Address:` Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: i G , Ae ,.v... M 1 p , Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: 1 wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL /CSD /SARDA/ A/TPFA (Circle One) Subject: _ C4 5. Qi_� I Gl Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk grlor to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for tho record. Name: ' C 0(`t°5 Address: Phone Number: / !�� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: `� ,fig cg:E�l1- \� = wl� 'dam �, �1kp Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. Temecula Community Services Rates and Charges For Fiscal year 2016-2017 WRITTEN PROTEST I am submitting and filing this WRITTEN PROTEST to the proposed charges for Temecula Community Services Rates and Charges For Fiscal year 2016-2017. This WRITTEN PROTEST is based on information personally obtained from the City of Temecula("City") as it relates to the underlying facts justifying the rate change. I. NOTICE NOT LEGALLY ACCURATE AND SUFFICIENT AND THEREFORE INVALID. The Notice of Temecula Community Services Rates and Charges For Fiscal Year 2016-2017 ("Notice") sent by the City of Temecula states in part: SERVICE LEVEL D—RECYCLING AND REFUSE An increase is proposed to the annual rate and charge for Service Level D (Refuse Collection/Recycling) from$259.72 to $269.60. The proposed rate adjustment is based on the combination of an increase in CPI,an increase in land fill tipping fees,the adopted residential recycling program, and a reduction in fund balance. (Emphasis added.) This is not legal and valid notice. On June 24—two (2)business days prior to the June 28 Public Hearing for the proposed rate change—the City told me the proposed increase to the annual rate and charge for Service Level D(Refuse Collection/Recycling)from $259.72 to $269.60 includes an "administrative cost"of"$5.62." On June 24, the City also admitted this information was not included in the Notice, and the City stated I was the only member of the public who had been given this information by virtue of asking about the underlying facts of the proposed charges. A $5.62 "administrative cost"is almost 60% of the $9.88 difference between"the annual rate and charge for Service Level D (Refuse Collection/Recycling) from$259.72 to $269.60." This percentage—60%—is not incidental. It is fundamental and substantial. The City admitted this and had no explanation for this omission. Thus, on this alone,the Notice itself is legally and functionally defective for lack of proper notice. Moreover, the City has not be able to provide any definitive explanation as to the specific amount adjustment/change for each category to reach the total of$9.88, instead giving amounts not totaling$9.88, and then stating"its complicated"as to the explanation as to why the totals are disparate. In other words, the amounts provided by the City for"the land fill tipping fees,the adopted residential recycling program, and a reduction in fund balance"as stated in the Notice, as well as the"administrative cost"of"$5.62" not stated in the Notice does not equal the $9.88 difference between"the annual rate and charge for Service Level D (Refuse Collection/Recycling) from $259.72 to $269.60." The City has unequivocally admitted that. If the City cannot provide adequate and sufficient notice by delineating the cost with sufficient specificity, it has not provided adequate and sufficient legal notice. "It's complicated"does not substitute for constitutional due process notice. 1 The annual rate change cannot be voted upon or imposed for this lack of proper adequate and accurate legal notice, and to do so would violate constitutional substantive and procedural due process. This is particularly true when the enforcement remedy is the ability to legally foreclose on a real estate parcel for failure to pay this City tax as a line item on our property taxes. II. JUSTIFICATION FOR ADJUSTMENTS ARE NOT RATIONALLY RELATED AND REASONABLE,THEREFORE ILLEGAL. Additional factors based on information provided by the City for this WRITTEN PROTEST as violations of law for the following charges are set forth below: 1. Increase in CPI—increase of$1.68/year Using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI as a basis of rate adjustment for the recycling and refuse rate adjustment is not rationally based to the evaluation of annual adjustments. * CPI is basket of goods related to consumer consumption, not the annual change in the cost of business in any given area. * Using an unrelated consumer Los Angles County-Orange County-Riverside County CPI—considered by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics a"metropolitan"index—as is used in this calculation is not rationally related to the City,which is a rural area. Moreover,having Riverside County lumped together with Los Angles and Orange Counties for the purposes of any adjustment is not rationally based or reasonable. Under the"Cost of living comparisons not appropriate"section in"Math calculations to better utilize CPI data,"a report prepared by Gerald Perrins, regional economist in the Mid-Atlantic Information Office, and Diane Nilsen, regional clearance officer in the National Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the report states, ". . . CPI indexes for one metropolitan area can not be compared with those in other areas to determine where it is more or less expensive to live." 2. Increase in landfill tipping fees —increase of$1.20/year Using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI as a basis of rate adjustment for the landfill tipping fees is not rationally based to the evaluation of annual adjustments. See argument above. 3. Residential organics recycling program —increase of$1.95/year The law does not require City residents to organically recycle, and on that basis alone this is an illegal charge. This tax reflects an illegal pass-through from CR&R Waste Services ("CR&R") for"the cost of 2 the anaerobic digester"reflected in the 5" amendment to the contract between the City and CR&R. The City admitted CR&R already had this equipment and after CR&R obtained the equipment, CR&R wanted the City to pay for it; the City Council approved this and incorporated the 5" amendment to the contract between CR&R and the City. Notwithstanding whatever obligation the City has under AB 1826, effective April 1, 2016, and AB 1594,effective January 1,2020, [four(4)years from now] to file annual reports about recycling plans, it is an obligation the State of California("State")has imposed on the City,not the residents. The State has not legally required residents to comply with organic recycling ("composting"),nor has it legally required the City to mandate its residents use such a program, and the State certainly has the authority to do if it wishes. Instead,the State has required the City to develop a plan. The City admits City Council has required the residents to pay for a program the residents are not legally required to use as a matter of law. To date CR&R claims it has provided approximately 180 organic recycling pails to City residents. If this is accurate,that is less than 2/3 of 1%of the 28,102 dwelling units in the City effected by these proposed changes. However,the City has evidence from CR&R itself that very few of those 180 pail owners are using the organic recycling program,meaning the number of people using the organic recycling program is closer to zero. Therefore,this charge is imposing an unfair and illegal tax on the other 99.35%to 99.999%residents for an organic recycling program that they may never use, nor are they required by law to use. Composting—organic recycling—is not a viable or desirable option for most residential home owners, for many reasons. Even committed environmentalists and conservationists do not want to compost as homeowners. It is one thing for residential property owners to generally recycle; it is a completely different thing for homeowners to organically recycle. Ask anyone who composts, and they know the fundamental and substantial difference. It is unreasonable to require an entire community to pay for something they are not legally required to use, and do not use. 4. Reduction in fund balance —increase of$1.68/year This is an illegal fund since it has no legal basis for establishment and no legitimate basis for its use. The City states this charge is related to a"fund"that already has $100,000.00. Yet,the Cityis unable to point to any charter or municipal code provision to justify the "fund,"nor could it legally justify any reason for its establishment. The City asserts this"fund" is akin to a reserve or rainy day fund because its alleged"purpose" is money available for the prospective use of "unforeseeable circumstances." But, after repeatedly and directly asked whether the City could name a single instance of an"unforeseeable circumstance" related to refuse/recycling collection that this $100,000.00 would"fund,"the City admitted it could not provide one example. It is unreasonable and illegal to require residents to pay for a fund that cannot be legally justified. 3 III. THERE IS NO OPT-OUT PROVISION FOR THESE CHARGES AND THE CITY REQUIRES PAYMENT UNDER THREAT OF FORECLOSURE BY COLLECTION WITH PROPERTY TAXES. The City is requiring all residents to pay for services that virtually no residents use, and where there is credible evidence in the City's possession to support this fact. Moreover, the City conceded there is no opt-out provision for these charges, and foreclosure proceedings can be pursued for non-payment because the City has passed on the collection of these charges to the County of Riverside by having the County collect these charges"along with property taxes." IV. THE CITY HAS UNREASONABLY ENTERED INTO A LONG-TERM CONTRACT WITH CR&R BINDING THE RESIDENTS TO UNFAVORABLE TERMS AND ILLEGAL PASS-THROUGHS. The City has entered into a long-term"evergreen" contract with CR&R, and has unreasonably placed its constituents in a losing bargaining position in an otherwise competitive market place and agreed to use a US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI related to a basket of consumer consumption rather than an industry's increased cost that is meaningfully and rationally related to the delivery of services to the City. The unreasonableness of this action is underscored by the City's agreeing to being contractually bound to CR&R for another seven(7)years after the City provides notice of termination to CR&R,whereby the City is unable to negotiate more favorable terms for another lengthy period. Further,the unreasonableness of the City's conduct is evidenced when the City substituted its legal obligations under state law to create an organic recycling plan and annually report back to the State by simply summarily and unilaterally agreeing to pay for CR&Rs pre-existing equipment in the 5'Amendment to the parties' contract. V. CONCLUSION The City has engaged in illegal conduct by providing constitutionally defective notice, imposing unreasonable and irrational charges, and providing no opt-out provisions for services where there is no legally required compliance. I reserve any and all legal rights I have regarding this matter and do not waive any and all other legal basis supporting this WRITTEN PROTEST, and for the previously stated reasons I submit and file this WRITTEN PROTEST to the Temecula Community Services Rates and Charges For Fiscal Year 2016-2017. $6 L MAGNAN NOVAN Date ������� 4