Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121217 CC AgendaIn 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 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 12, 2017 — 3:00 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. No Closed Session Next in Order: Ordinance: 17-14 Resolution: 17-82 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: None Invocation: To Be Announced Flag Salute: Council Member Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Introduction of Jessica Munoz, Riverside Vice -President of Voices for Children, the Non - Profit Training Arm of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) 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. 1 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 of November 28, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of November 28, 2017. 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- 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 October 31, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017. 5 Approve the Citywide Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: 2 Vendor FY 17-18 Estimated Amount Description of Purchases Downs Fueling $50,000 Vehicle Gasoline Hanks Hardware $85,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Home Depot $35,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Maintex $35,000 Janitorial Supplies Mission Electric $35,000 Electrical Equipment and Supplies Waxie Sanitary Supplies $40,000 Janitorial Supplies 6 Approve a Five-year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A. for Banking Services RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve a Five -Year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A., for banking services; 6.2 Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute all necessary agreements. 7 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Plan Consulting RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $93,325, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Planning Services; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $9,333; 7.3 Appropriate $102,658 from Fund 320 — Information Technology Available Fund Balance. 8 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $283,890, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $28,389; 8.3 Appropriate $312,279 from Fund 320 — Information Technology, funded through an interfund transfer from the Measure S Fund in the amount of $135,251, an interfund transfer from the General Fund in the amount of $77,028, and a $100,000 appropriation from Fund 320's available Fund Balance. 3 9 Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adiustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 9.2 Appropriate $44,129 from the General Fund available fund balance, and $14,350 from Fund 320 - Information Technology available fund balance. 10 Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding Under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program for program funding for the Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. 11 Approve Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement with Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC, for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements Related to the Temecula Park and Ride Project RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA 12 Approve the First Amendment to a Three -Year Agreement with Counts Unlimited, Inc. for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to a Three -Year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc., in the amount of $20,000, for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Year 2017-18. 4 13 Amend the Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 to Add the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08-04, as a Standalone Project, and Remove the Project from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide Project Budget RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-22 TO ADD THE SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT, PW08-04, AS A STANDALONE PROJECT, AND REMOVE THE PROJECT FROM THE BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM — CITYWIDE PROJECT BUDGET 14 Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize the Department of Public Works to Solicit Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16; 14.2 Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. 15 Establish an All -Way Stop Control at the Intersections of Temeku Drive and Pin Way/Legends Golf Club Driveway, and Temeku Drive and Gleneagles Drive RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TEMEKU DRIVE AND PIN WAY/LEGENDS GOLF CLUB DRIVEWAY, AND TEMEKU DRIVE AND GLENEAGLES DRIVE ******************** 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 ******************** 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 17-01 Resolution: CSD 17-05 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, 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. 16 Approve the Action Minutes of November 28, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 28, 2017. 17 Approve the Temecula Community Services District Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 That the Board of Directors approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: Vendor FY 17-18 Amount Description of Purchases Amazon $45,000 Library Books, Goods, Supplies and Equipment for TCSD Programs and Events Costco $45,000 Goods and Supplies for TCSD Programs and Events 6 18 Receive and File the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adiustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Receive and file the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 18.2 Appropriate $102,078 from the Temecula Community Services District available fund balance. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 9, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 7 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — No Meeting 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. If the City Council does not complete its consideration of the matter by 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2017, the City Council may continue the public hearing and item to the next day, Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in accordance with State law. 19 Consider the Altair Specific Plan Project Including a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Plan (Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, and PA14-0161) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and consider the Altair Project including a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement (Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, PA14-0159, PA14-0160, and PA14-0161) and adopt related resolutions and introduce ordinance: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 8 19.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN BYPASS, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPOSED LAND USES IDENTIFIED IN THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN BY REPLACING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP), OPEN SPACE (OS), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M), HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H), AND HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) WITH SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 19.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 19.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36959 TO SUBDIVIDE 270 ACRES INTO 63 NUMBERED LOTS TO DEFINE THE OPEN SPACE AND THE VILLAGE AREAS, AND 20 LETTERED LOTS TO DEFINE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) 9 19.5 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMBIENT COMMUNITIES FOR THE ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN #15 ON APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APNS 922-210-049, 940-310- 013, 940-310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 20 Adopt Ordinance Reauthorizing the Public, Educational and Government Fee for Cable Television Franchisees RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Introduce and read by title only the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REAUTHORIZING AND READOPTING THE CITY'S PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS SUPPORT FEE 20.2 Adopt by 4/5 vote the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REAUTHORIZING THE CITY'S PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS SUPPORT FEE ADJOURNMENT JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 21 Appoint the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for Calendar Year 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Appoint the Mayor, effective January 1, 2018, to preside until December 31, 2018; 21.2 Appoint the Mayor Pro Tem, effective January 1, 2018, to hold this office until December 31, 2018. 10 22 Appoint the President and Vice -President of the Temecula Community Services District for Calendar Year 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Appoint the President, effective January 1, 2018, to preside until December 31, 2018; 22.2 Appoint the Vice -President, effective January 1, 2018, to hold this office until December 31, 2018. ADJOURNMENT BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, January 9, 2018, 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 — TemeculaCA.gov — 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 — TemeculaCA.gov — 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. 11 Item No. 1 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Mr- •CIal. AIL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: December 12, 2017 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 NOVEMBER 28, 2017 — 7:00 PM No Closed Session At 7:01 PM Mayor Edwards called the City Council meeting to order to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Temecula Conservatory of Music Invocation: Rabbi Yonasan Abrams of Chabad of Temecula Valley Flag Salute: Council Member Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar (Absent), Rahn, Stewart, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Welcome to Dignitaries from Sister City Daisen, Japan Presentation of Proclamation to Invictus Games Participant Sarah Rudder Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Temecula Conservatory of Music Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Temecula Valley Balloon and Wine Festival Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to The Goat and Vine PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Scott Scharpen CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Nagger Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. Action Minutes 112817 1 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 November 14, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Nagger Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of November 14, 2017. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Adopt Tax -Advantaged Bonds Post -Issuance Compliance Procedures and Continuing Disclosure Compliance Procedures for Bonds Issued by City and Related Entities - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING TAX -ADVANTAGED BONDS POST - ISSUANCE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND CONTINUING DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES, AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS 5 Adopt Ordinance 17-13 Allowing Private Traffic Control and Direction on Public Streets Subject to Certain Terms and Conditions (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. Action Minutes 112817 2 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 10.48, PRIVATE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND DIRECTION, TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 6 Approve the Sixth Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with CR&R Incorporated - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH CR&R, INC. FOR THE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, RECYCLING, COMPOSTING, AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY BIN/ROLLOFF SERVICES 7 Approve an Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. for Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Naggar Absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement for Minor Maintenance Services with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) maintenance services for Fiscal Year 2017-18. RECESS: At 7:30 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting. At 7:34 PM, the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. Action Minutes 112817 3 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 7:37 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2017, for an adjourned regular session commencing at 3:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 112817 4 Item No. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance December 12, 2017 Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Pascale Brown, Fiscal Services Manager Pam Espinoza, Accounting Tech I That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- 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. 17- 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 $3,308,461.43. 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 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, 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 11/08/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 426,765.87 11/16/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,320,271.92 11/21/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,126,725.12 11/16/2017 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 434,698.52 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 12/12/2017 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 3,308,461.43 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 1,036,709.03 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 425.62 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,260.18 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 260,459.85 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 73,220.35 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,878.48 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 14,748.16 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 15,504.51 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 1,163,550.30 300 INSURANCE FUND 18,072.16 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 1,408.21 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 107,087.80 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 39,962.91 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 5,443.85 340 FACILITIES 48,380.15 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 827.96 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 27.96 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 27.96 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE II 139.75 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 3,008.88 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 2,120.68 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 2,602.53 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 485.18 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 2,204.97 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 1,159.43 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 1,080.52 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 5,726.89 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 188.02 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 538.12 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 146.50 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 3,424.84 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 2,201.80 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 1,071.00 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 459.45 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 1,015.92 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 149.16 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 6,722.69 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 2,984.35 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 6,209.22 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 13,851.51 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 241.18 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 434.92 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 8,217.56 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 3,144.46 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 107.52 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 343.56 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 12,594.49 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 108.49 $ 2,873,762.91 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 265,555.91 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 413.46 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,271.22 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 111,295.75 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 336.31 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,337.37 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 363.02 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 1,777.40 300 INSURANCE FUND 947.59 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 2,044.69 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 30,044.30 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 4,701.83 340 FACILITIES 9,399.97 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 45.07 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 45.07 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 45.07 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE II 225.35 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 28.90 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 44.88 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 38.52 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 5.65 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 64.47 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 10.29 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 11.66 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 210.46 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.00 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 8.97 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 3.39 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 121.91 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 26.06 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 9.50 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 7.88 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 30.53 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 1.10 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 113.15 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 60.41 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 168.66 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 277.36 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 4.25 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 7.25 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 156.08 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 50.16 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 1.44 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 7.25 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 239.05 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 2.70 434,698.52 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 3,308,461.43 apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 185850 11/08/2017 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 350.00 350.00 185851 11/08/2017 015217 AIRGAS, INC. GAS FOR DRY ICE 7.29 7.29 EXPERIMENTS:PPW 185852 11/08/2017 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING & MAINT: THEATER 185.00 185.00 185853 11/08/2017 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT RENTALS:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVENTS 323.09 323.09 185854 11/08/2017 017795 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, LANGUAGE TESTING: HR 60.00 INC 185855 11/08/2017 018941 AZTEC LANDSCAPING, INC. OCT RESTROOMS:SHELTERS MAINT: 7,329.74 VAR PARKS 185856 11/08/2017 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 269.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 465.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 343.00 185857 11/08/2017 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, STTLMNT: CABARET AT THE MERC: 973.00 THE 10/29/17 185858 11/08/2017 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL SERVICE OCT POOLS & FOUNTAINS MAINT:VAR FACI LITI OCT POOL SVC: CRC & TESC POOL 925.00 1,050.00 185859 11/08/2017 009437 BRENNER FIELDER & ASSOC, HARVESTON LAKE PARK -WATER 1,137.74 INC PUMP VANE 185860 11/08/2017 017115 BUREAU OF OFFICE TRANSCRIPTION SVCS:TEMECULA PD 32.20 SERVICES, INC 185861 11/08/2017 003138 CAL MAT 185862 11/08/2017 004462 CDW, LLC ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT DIRECT CONNECT CABLE: INFO TECH DIRECT CONNECT CABLE: INFO TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:INFO TECF camera sury dev license:restroom areas MONITOR REPLACEMENT:TCSD 185863 11/08/2017 004412 COMPLETE TENNIS CAMP, THE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 490.13 463.37 341.44 488.65 -27.70 27.70 454.03 1,618.22 2,022.12 60.00 7,329.74 1,078.00 973.00 1,975.00 1,137.74 32.20 1,783.59 4,094.37 280.00 280.00 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185864 11/08/2017 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS ALARM MONITORING:PD OLD TOWN OFC Amount Paid Check Total 123.50 123.50 185865 11/08/2017 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 189.88 189.88 DIST. 185866 11/08/2017 014521 COSTAR GROUP NOV 17 WEB SUBSCRIPTION:ECO DEV 453.19 453.19 INFORMATION, INC 185867 11/08/2017 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 MISC SUPPLIES - PREVENTION 235.17 185868 11/08/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 OFFICE SUPPLIES:INFO TECH 49.17 284.34 building/recreation supplies:MRC 523.02 SUPPLIES & MISC. ITEMS:MPSC 185869 11/08/2017 020105 CUMBERBATCH, JAMAL TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 185870 11/08/2017 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: RIVERTON LANE PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: LASE PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: GENE PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: HARI)) 185871 11/08/2017 019720 DIVERSIFIED WATERSCAPES , OCT WATER QUALITY MAINT:DUCK INC. PON D: HARV 199.22 722.24 560.00 560.00 55.96 55.96 55.96 159.96 327.84 6,766.00 6,766.00 185872 11/08/2017 004799 E C S IMAGING INC LF QUICK FIELDS SOFTWARE:CITY 4,070.00 4,070.00 CLERK 185873 11/08/2017 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY NOV STATE LOBBYING SVCS LLC 185875 11/08/2017 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. 185876 11/08/2017 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 185877 11/08/2017 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK 185878 11/08/2017 014865 FREIZE UHLER, KIMBERLY OCT LDSCP MAINT SVCS: LEVEL C SLOPES OCTG LDSCP MAI NT SRVCS: LEVEL C SI OCT LDSCP MAINT:PARKS:MEDIANS OCT LDSCP MAINT:PARKS:MEDIANS OCT LDSCP MAINT:PARKS:MEDIANS OCT LDSCP MAINT SVCS: VAR FACILITIE 3,500.00 3,500.00 36,314.91 23,074.18 51,049.63 54,261.63 19,085.51 11,340.40 195,126.26 10/24 EXP MAIL SVCS: INFO TECH 40.86 40.86 STTLMNT: "ANNIE" 10/13-10/29/17 25,284.52 25,284.52 SUMMIT SUPPLIES: EMER MGMT 1,462.44 Annual Board & Commission Recognition 1,004.47 2,466.91 185879 11/08/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. NOV INTERNET SVCS:EOC 135.80 135.80 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185880 11/08/2017 016184 FUN EXPRESS, LLC SUPPLIES & MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SVCS 185881 11/08/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: WORKFORCE DEV MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: WORKFORCE Amount Paid Check Total 169.39 169.39 29.54 146.02 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CENTRAL SVCS 42.18 217.74 185882 11/08/2017 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL OCT LEASE FOR 6 COPIERS:LIBRARY 793.89 SVCS OCT LEASE FOR COPIERS: VARI. LOCAT 291.45 1,085.34 185883 11/08/2017 020313 GUNSOLUS, MARIE REFUND:CANCELLED 65.00 65.00 RESERVATION:BUS TOUR 185884 11/08/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 47.50 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 61.63 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:B&S DEPT 24.40 MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC 5.75 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 9.21 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 242.97 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 154.02 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 205.10 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 52.17 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 58.25 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 90.39 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 90.24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 2.02 MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 4.98 MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 25.51 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STA73 24.46 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - PREVENTION 18.48 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STA 12 9.75 MAINT. SUPPLIES: LIBRARY 3.07 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 6.51 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 16.44 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 38.05 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 28.02 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 15.81 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:PW STREET C 204.35 1,439.08 185885 11/08/2017 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, Equiptment Storage: Sta 73-- 575.29 575.29 THE 185886 11/08/2017 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAR 476.00 476.00 INC POOLS 185887 11/08/2017 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES MEMBERSHIP MTG: EDWARDS, E. 25.00 25.00 11/13 Page :3 apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185888 11/08/2017 011145 LODATO, JILL CHRISTINE Description Amount Paid Check Total TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,070.60 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 3,276.00 5,346.60 185889 11/08/2017 020318 LONG BEACH FIRE REGIST: PYROTECHNICS CLASS: 80.00 80.00 DEPARTMENT RODRIGUEZ 185890 11/08/2017 004813 M & J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC inflatable rentals:various special 1,445.00 1,445.00 185891 11/08/2017 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING WELDING REPAIRS & SRVCS: VAR 560.00 560.00 INC. PARKS 185892 11/08/2017 017956 MONOPRICE INC. AUDIO VISUAL SUPPLIES:INFO TECH 23.33 23.33 185893 11/08/2017 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 364.00 364.00 185894 11/08/2017 020312 MYERS, MARLENE REFUND:CANCELLED 65.00 65.00 RESERVATION:BUS TOUR 185895 11/08/2017 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: FOC 155.25 AMERICA 185896 11/08/2017 010334 OBMANN, REBECCA 185897 11/08/2017 019839 O'CONNOR, DENISE 185898 11/08/2017 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS DIV 185899 11/08/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: MRC 26.36 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: OTTT 35.25 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: TVE2 47.58 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: IWTCM 30.57 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: TCC 26.03 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: AQUATIC 6.51 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: SKATE F 6.45 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: LIBRARY 67.38 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVC: CITY COU 27.32 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: CRC 121.44 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: PBSP 54.11 9/23-10/22 WATER DELIV SVCS: TVM 34.79 639.04 REIMB:NEOGOV CONF 10/24-27 187.68 187.68 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 105.00 105.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW TRAFFIC 254.48 254.48 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW CI 49.95 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW CI 775.69 825.64 185900 11/08/2017 019334 PARK CONSULTING GROUP, OCT CONSULTING & ENTERPRISE 2,567.50 2,567.50 INC SRVCS:INFO T Page4 apChkLst 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185901 11/08/2017 000249 PETTY CASH 185902 11/08/2017 006653 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON INC 185903 11/08/2017 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS 185904 11/08/2017 020177 RAIN DROP PRODUCTS, LLC 185905 11/08/2017 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 185906 11/08/2017 020226 SAITECH INC 185907 11/08/2017 020315 SANTAGUIDA, KATHRYN 185908 11/08/2017 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PRESTON 185909 11/08/2017 017113 SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY PUBLISHING, 185910 11/08/2017 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES INC 185911 11/08/2017 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Description PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PLAYSTRUCTURE PARTS:TEMEKU HILLS PARK "FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE" TICKET SALES SENSORS: MARGARITA SPLASH PAD OCT 2017 LEGAL SERVICES COMPUTER LIFECYCLE REPLACEMENT:INFO TECH REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC COUNCIL PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS 11/2 PHOTOGRAPHER:HALLOWEEN CARNIV1 CHILDREN'S BOOKS:LIBRARY REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:LIBRARY 8 REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:TVE REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:TVE REPAIRS & MAINT OF FIRE SYSTEM:LIBF Amount Paid Check Total 1,115.16 18,435.21 36.85 1,091.44 8,980.00 39,962.91 200.00 150.00 150.00 19.79 417.00 507.00 244.00 1,128.16 "LIFENOTE" TICKET SALES 10/28/17 1,595.00 JAZZ @ THE MERC 10/26/17 1,115.16 18,435.21 36.85 1,091.44 8,980.00 39,962.91 200.00 300.00 19.79 2,296.16 489.30 2,084.30 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185912 11/08/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description OCT 2-29-953-8447:31738 WOLF VLY RD OCT 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT FRONT ST OCT 2-00-397-5042:43200 BUS PARK DR OCT 2-25-393-4681:41951 MORAGA RD OCT 2-35-664-9053:29119 MARGARITA RE OCT 2-30-220-8749:45850 N WOLF CREE OCT 2-31-936-3511:46488 PECHANGA PK OCT 2-32-903-8293:41000 MAIN ST OCT 2-29-223-8607:42035 2ND ST PED OCT 2-39-732-3171:41997 MARGARITA RI OCT 2-35-707-0010:33451 S HWY-79 PED OCT 2-29-953-8249:46497 WOLF CREEK I OCT 2-29-953-8082:31523 WOLF VLY RD OCT 2-29-657-2332:45538 REDWOOD RD OCT 2-29-295-3510:32211 WOLF VLY RD OCT 2-30-520-4414:32781 TEM PKWY LS: OCT 2-28-629-0507:30600 PAUBA RD OCT 2-02-502-8077:43210 BUS PARK DR OCT 2-35-403-6337:41375 MCCABE CT OCT 2-31-536-3226:28690 MERCEDES Si OCT 2-00-397-5067:TCSD SVC LEVEL C Amount Paid Check Total 23.36 101.54 3,845.78 647.62 740.74 343.73 46.55 16,234.27 487.73 23.21 49.07 25.64 26.61 23.48 1,170.87 1,135.24 7,207.62 383.39 856.76 1,375.85 1,865.71 36,614.77 185913 11/08/2017 013864 SO PACIFIC MASTERS ASSN 2018 CTMA MEMBERSHIP DUES 56.00 56.00 185914 11/08/2017 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST OCT PEST CONTROL SRVCS:CITY CONTROL INC FACS 890.00 890.00 185915 11/08/2017 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NOV GEN USAGE:0141,0839,2593,9306 566.67 566.67 185916 11/08/2017 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC REFRESHMENTS:YOUNG 67.48 INNOVATORS 10/18 REFRESHMENTS:SKATE PARK 10/20/17 150.10 185917 11/08/2017 017295 TEMECULA PIZZA FACTORY REFRESHMENTS:SKATE PARK 250.44 10/17/17 185918 11/08/2017 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE NOV HIGH SPEED INTERNET:LIBRARY 185920 11/08/2017 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE OCT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT AUG POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT SEPT POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT 217.58 250.44 593.32 593.32 2,083.42 2,602.80 1,356.36 185921 11/08/2017 017579 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 28.00 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 6,042.58 165.00 193.00 185922 11/08/2017 020314 ULTIMATE BUILDERS INC REFUND:CANCELLED 164.80 164.80 PERMIT:B17-2860 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185923 11/08/2017 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE OCT UNDERGROUND UTILITY ALERT LOCATOR ALERTS:P 185924 11/08/2017 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. MISC RENTALS:SEPTEMBER 11 REMEBRANCE 185925 11/08/2017 000319 VARSITY BRANDS HOLDING REC SUPPLIES:CRC CO, INC Amount Paid Check Total 267.40 267.40 251.00 251.00 113.19 113.19 185926 11/08/2017 002658 VOLLMUTH, MARY REIMB:CITY PROCUREMENT GROUP 65.98 65.98 MTG 10/24 185927 11/08/2017 004861 VON RICHTER, POLLY REIMB:NEOGOV CONF 10/24-27 192.28 192.28 185928 11/08/2017 020178 VP IMAGING, INC GEODOCS SOFTWARE:GIS 28,350.00 28,350.00 185929 11/08/2017 007987 WALMART SUPPLIES:CULTURALARTS 103.97 103.97 185930 11/08/2017 003730 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC 9/16-30 TREE MAINT:OLD TOWN 649.00 649.00 1001905 11/02/2017 020299 IMP, ARLENE REFUND:PENCIL PORTRAIT DRAWING 40.00 40.00 1001906 11/02/2017 020316 JONES, SANDRA REFUND:TEM WINE & PAINT CLASS 10.00 10.00 1001907 11/02/2017 020297 MORALES, JOSE REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTON 1001908 11/02/2017 020317 PARKER, JESSICA REFUND:PARENT & ME PLAYGROUP 25.60 25.60 1001909 11/02/2017 018662 SAGMAN, BETHE REFUND:BIGFOOT'S EPIC VIDEO GAME 1001910 11/02/2017 020298 STEVENS, GERALD REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 10.00 10.00 200.00 200.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 426,765.87 Page:7 apChkLst 11/08/2017 10:32:45AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 85 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 426,765.87 Page apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3562 11/16/2017 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 3563 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 015626 EVENTBRITE.COM 006942 ONTARIO Al RPORT 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 3565 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 007898 AMERICAN FIRE SPRINKLER ASSOC. 020320 POLLARD WATER 020321 INLAND EMPIRE FIRE EXPLORER 018925 FIREHOUSE SUBS 3566 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020322 HPN BOOKS 008956 PANERA BREAD 3567 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 006692 SAM'S CLUB 001104 ARMA 016098 CULTIVATING GOOD, INC. 001048 ROSAS CANTINA RESTAURANT 006692 SAM'S CLUB Description PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT ME REGIST: URBAN INLAND EMPIRE 10/25 ME PARKING: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES ME LODGING: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CD MEMBERSHIP FOR CITY OF TEMECULA CD WATER GAUGE REPLACEMENT: INSP KITS CD MEMBERSHIP & LEADERSHIP CONF: DEHART CD RFRSHMNTS: TEEN CERT 9/23-9/24 AA SPONSORSHIP WITH TEMECULA VALLEY AA RFSHMNTS: MTG WITH CITY ATTORNEY 9/26 RO SUPPLIES FOR COLLEGE FAIR - VOTER RO ESSENTIALS RECORDS & INFO MGMT: RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL CLOSED SESSION RO RFSHMNT: CITY CNCL CLOSED SESSION RO RFSHMNT: CITY CNCL CLOSED SESSION Amount Paid Check Total 94,814.67 110.00 54.00 428.92 100.00 244.04 185.40 875.12 1,500.00 86.87 67.96 1,299.00 225.01 146.70 50.14 94,814.67 592.92 1,404.56 1,586.87 1,788.81 Pagel apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3568 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC 020277 NETGEAR INC 013851 STORM SOURCE, LLC 001060 HYATT 020278 SIFT CO. 016542 DOTGOV 3569 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 015626 EVENTBRITE.COM 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 000154 CSMFO 000154 CSMFO 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS-CAREERTRAC 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 006952 PAY PAL 019159 CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM 2016 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMORE (Continued) Description MH NETGEAR \IFI RANGE EXTENDER: CAMERAS MH ARLO CAMERAS: HICKS PARK & THEATER MH CAMERA SUPPORT: HICKS PARK & THEATER MH APPOINTMENT PLUS:IT MH LODGING: MISAC CONFERENCE: HESLIN MH MEETING COLLABORATION SVCS MH DOMAIN NAME FOR TEMECULA.GOV JH WEBINAR: 2ND ANNUAL BETTER BUDGETING JH TRAINING REGISTRATION: HENNESSY JH APPLICATION: BUDGET PRESENTATION PRGM JH ENTRY FEE: OPERATING BUDGET AWARD JH ENTRY FEE: CAPITAL BUDGET AWARD JH REGIST: WEBINAR: VOLLMUTH, M. JH RFSHMNTS: TEEN CERT TRAINING JH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION JH REGIST: CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM 10/23 JH REGIST:COMPENSATION WEBINAR: WARD Amount Paid Check Total 311.00 543.73 129.00 40.00 724.62 149.00 400.00 180.00 110.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 199.00 575.54 51.60 399.00 2,297.35 100.00 2,465.14 Page2 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3570 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 019302 MR. WORLDWIDE CATERING 009414 KARL STRAUSS CARLSBAD 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS-CAREERTRAC 008668 WES FLOWERS 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC 019159 CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM 2016 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 3571 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 017583 ASSOCIATION OF AQUATIC 017583 ASSOCIATION OF AQUATIC 019825 GETTY IMAGES 019751 STRYDER TRANSPORTATION 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF 002377 BEST BUY COMPANY INC 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 017038 CPS HR CONSULTING 017038 CPS HR CONSULTING 017038 CPS HR CONSULTING 020250 GARDENS ALIVE.COM 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC 006952 PAY PAL 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC 020323 PEACEFUL VALLEY FARM SUPPLY Description IG RFRSHMNTS:EMP RECOGNITION PGRM IG RFSHMNTS: RECOGNITION MTG 9/14 IG EDUCATION: EXCEL CLASSES: GINA IG SUNSHINE FUND IG EOC SUMMIT SUPPLIES IG EQUIPMENT FOR EMPLOYEE GYM IG CALPERS EDUCATION FORUM: GARIBAY, I. IG RFRSHMNTS: EM SUMMIT 10/12 KH REGIST: 2018 CONFERENCE: WILLCOX KH REGIST: 2018 CONFERENCE: DAVIS KH IMAGES FOR PROMOTIONAL FLYERS KH TRANSP: SENIOR EXCURSION: PAM SPRINGS KH SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT: HALLOWEEN KH SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT: HALLOWEEN KH RETURN OF RING DOORBELL KH RFRSHMNTS: POOL TOURNAMENT MPSC KH REGIST: DIST 11 REC UNIVERSITY: NIETO KH REGIST: DIST 11 REC UNIVERSITY: HUHTA KH REGIST: DIST 11 REC UNIVERSITY: KH SUPPLIES FOR HORTICULTURE PROGRAM KH RFRSHMNTS: HEALTH FAIR KH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION KH RFSHMNTS:HOMELESS OUTREACH DAY Amount Paid Check Total 520.00 212.43 128.00 61.43 172.18 22.78 399.00 1,321.38 324.00 324.00 149.00 1,485.00 196.00 4.65 -217.49 120.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 24.99 349.91 184.50 204.93 2,837.20 KH SUPPLIES FOR HORTICULTURE 19.96 3,244.45 PROGRAM Page3 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3573 11/16/2017 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT 3574 11/16/2017 000194 I CMA RETIREMENT -PLAN 303355 3575 11/16/2017 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 3576 11/16/2017 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 3577 11/16/2017 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3578 11/16/2017 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3579 11/16/2017 019088 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3580 11/16/2017 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 3581 11/15/2017 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF 185931 11/16/2017 016466 3M COMPANY 185932 11/16/2017 020247 ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES 185933 11/16/2017 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES 185934 11/16/2017 010905 ALLIED TRAFFIC & EQUIPMENT 185935 11/16/2017 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW 185936 11/16/2017 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES (AFN) 185937 11/16/2017 011752 ASAN SOCIETY GROUP - Description SUPPORT PAYMENT I CMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 PAYMENT STATE TAXES PAYMENT FEDERAL TAXES PAYMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT PAYMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT NATIONWIDE LOAN REPAYMENT PAYMENT PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT OCT 17 TUMF PAYMENT EQUIP REPAIR & MAINT:NOISE METERS COLLECTION FEE PER AGREEMENT PIANO TUNING & MAINT: THEATER Misc supplies:various special events BACKFLOW TESTS & REPAIRS: VAR PARKS BACKFLOW TESTS & REPAIRS: VAR PAR REPLACE BACKFLOW - TEMEKU HILLS F Replace backflows & regulator- Wolf PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLICE PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLIC REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC Amount Paid Check Total 1,008.45 8,279.76 22,652.04 85,351.08 2,486.82 9,958.54 442.44 94,049.55 176,240.99 394.30 59.85 185.00 570.00 1,350.00 1,685.00 4,230.00 3,450.00 645.00 270.00 200.00 1,008.45 8,279.76 22,652.04 85,351.08 2,486.82 9,958.54 442.44 94,049.55 176,240.99 394.30 59.85 185.00 570.00 10, 715.00 915.00 200.00 Page4 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 185938 11/16/2017 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 10.53 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 101.28 185939 11/16/2017 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, STTLMNT: MAGIC AT THE MERC: 11/12 504.00 THE 111.81 504.00 185940 11/16/2017 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 109.02 VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 128.70 VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 310.50 VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW ST MAINT. 292.04 840.26 185941 11/16/2017 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION NOV ONLINE DATABASE 155.98 155.98 SUBSCRIPTION: PD 185942 11/16/2017 018719 CM SCHOOL SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES:PPW 82.64 82.64 185943 11/16/2017 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC., DBA: OCT 17 COBRAADMINISTRATION: HR 529.00 529.00 FLEX ADVANTAGE 185944 11/16/2017 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES, C/O WELLS FARGO PAYMENT BANK 185945 11/16/2017 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: TVM 114.19 DIST. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 252.30 366.49 185946 11/16/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 THEATER HOSPITALITY & OFFICE 288.54 288.54 SUPPLIES 185947 11/16/2017 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & PLUMBING SRVCS & REPAIRS: VAR 554.00 HVAC INC PARKS PLUMBING SRVCS & REPAIRS: VAR PAR 260.00 814.00 185948 11/16/2017 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTALS: 55.96 55.96 SRVCS GREAT OAK HS 185949 11/16/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 185950 11/16/2017 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 510.12 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW: LAND DE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PLAN & BLD( FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEI OCT WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD BLDG OCT WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD D OCT WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD L 119.51 368.74 95.00 191.95 1,042.03 818.50 193.82 316.53 115.20 48.21 3,656.20 379.00 542.41 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 185951 11/16/2017 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE JUL SEIR:PROPOSED OT BOUTIQUE 1,622.50 1,622.50 ASSOC. HOTEL 185952 11/16/2017 019469 FALCON ENGINEERING OCT CONST. MGMNTSVCS: PW04-08 130,568.58 130,568.58 SERVICES 185953 11/16/2017 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING NOV JANITORIAL SRVCS:POLICE MALL 922.50 922.50 CONTRACTORS OFFICE 185954 11/16/2017 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 10/19-10/24 EXP MAIL SVCS: CLERK& 75.12 75.12 PD 185955 11/16/2017 020331 FERNANDEZ, JENNY REFUND:CREDITONACCT:TCSD 139.50 139.50 185956 11/16/2017 001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ADVISORY SVC: CIVIC CTR PRIVATE 6,511.50 6,511.50 ASSOCIATES 185957 11/16/2017 016436 FRICK, TRACY REIMB:HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL DECOR 185958 11/16/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. 185959 11/16/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC NOV INTERNET SVCS:SKATE PARK NOV INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY NOV INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY NOV INTERNET SVCS:FIRE STN 95 NOV INTERNET SVCS:C. MUSEUM, GIFT NOV INTERNET SVCS:EXT DMV INET LIN MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - PREVENTION MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - STA 73 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - STA 73 Office Supplies: Planning 185960 11/16/2017 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL OCT LEASE FOR COPIERS: VARI. SVCS LOCATIONS 97.77 97.77 41.94 7.42 7.42 122.18 126.98 107.84 413.78 15.64 13.90 4.63 702.45 736.62 1,351.02 1,351.02 185961 11/16/2017 000863 I PMA AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 397.00 397.00 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185963 11/16/2017 005579 INLAND EMPIRE PROPERTY Description WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFORCE WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI Amount Paid Check Total 720.00 565.00 367.50 390.00 400.00 565.00 565.00 235.00 235.00 455.00 345.00 405.00 565.00 790.00 680.00 655.00 1,120.00 835.00 1,200.00 367.50 470.00 1,017.50 2,505.00 545.00 790.00 675.00 680.00 565.00 635.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 284.00 367.50 270.00 270.00 145.00 270.00 305.00 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI WEED ABATEMENT SRVCS:CODE ENFOI Amount Paid Check Total 305.00 455.00 810.00 675.00 235.00 170.00 170.00 390.00 477.50 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 170.00 145.00 480.00 235.00 145.00 158.75 257.50 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 145.00 525.00 390.00 170.00 170.00 280.00 145.00 170.00 1,530.00 490.00 270.00 270.00 435.00 725.00 477.50 587.50 477.50 815.00 37,505.25 185964 11/16/2017 010766 INLAND VALLEY SYMPHONY SYMPHONY 11,500.00 11,500.00 PERFORMANCES:CULTURAL ARTS Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 185965 11/16/2017 020245 INNOVATIVE DSGN & SHEET MOTOR REPAIR: TEM POLICE METAL 185966 11/16/2017 015358 KELLY PAPER COMPANY, INC. PAPER/BINDING/PCKG SUPP:CENTRAL SVC 185967 11/16/2017 017118 KRACH, BREE B. AWARDS ETC:CULTURALARTS 185968 11/16/2017 011321 LABOR LAW CENTER INC Labor Law Posters: HR 185969 11/16/2017 014432 LANAIR GROUP, LLC SHORETEL BACKUP & DISASTER RECOVERY SHORTEL: INFRASTRUCTURE MONITOR SHORETEL ANNUAL SUPPORT:IT Amount Paid Check Total 337.21 337.21 436.36 436.36 2.99 2.99 882.31 882.31 600.00 1,188.00 14,877.00 16,665.00 185970 11/16/2017 011920 MASTER CONCEPTS LLC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 588.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,102.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 588.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,176.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 735.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,176.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 661.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 882.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 367.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 808.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 220.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 441.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,610.00 13,884.50 185971 11/16/2017 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. CDBG 2017-2021 CONSOLIDATED 21,000.00 21,000.00 PLAN 185972 11/16/2017 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. ENG SUPPORT SVC: PW04-08 6,557.31 6/1-8/31 CEQA INITIAL STUDY: ART GAIT/ 6,637.49 13,194.80 185973 11/16/2017 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 144.93 144.93 185974 11/16/2017 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION NICOLAS PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIP: -61,595.14 EQUIPMENT PW17-10 NICOLAS PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIP: P 246,380.57 184,785.43 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185975 11/16/2017 016445 MKB PRINTING & PROMOTIONAL INC Description Amount Paid Check Total BUSINESS CARDS:TEMECULA POLICE 160.29 Envelopes, #10 Window and Pink Return 680.66 Envelopes, #10 Window and Pink Return 690.97 1,531.92 185976 11/16/2017 019733 MULLEN COUGHLIN, LLC RETAINER: ATTORNEY 3,728.50 3,728.50 185977 11/16/2017 019019 MUSIC CONNECTION LLC STTLMNT: SPEAKEASY AT THE MERC 453.60 453.60 11/11 185978 11/16/2017 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC NOV IT MONITORING SRVCS: TVE2 100.00 100.00 185979 11/16/2017 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION NFPATRAINING: PREV 1,079.10 1,079.10 ASSN 185980 11/16/2017 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV 17.44 DIV 185981 11/16/2017 013198 ORTENZO-HAYES, KRISTINE OFFICE SUPPLIES:EMERGENCY MGMT 61.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW TRAFFIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 55.34 134.76 369.60 369.60 323.40 369.60 693.00 784.00 784.00 3,693.20 185982 11/16/2017 010338 POOL& ELECTRICAL CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES: T.E.S. 32.15 PRODUCTS INC POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES:SPLASH PAD 181.57 CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES: VAR.POOL: 403.63 CREDIT:POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAF -403.63 213.72 185983 11/16/2017 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN OCT PLN CK REVIEW 13,450.80 13,450.80 SRVCS:PREVENTION 185984 11/16/2017 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE BANNER PROGRAM: ECON DEV 249.04 249.04 ADVERTISI NG 185985 11/16/2017 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL OCT UNIFORMS/FLR MATS:PARKS 557.93 557.93 SUPPLY MAINT/CIVIC Page:10 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185986 11/16/2017 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 185987 11/16/2017 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 185988 11/16/2017 020330 ROMAN, RACHEL 185989 11/16/2017 013375 RUSSO, ERICA 185990 11/16/2017 004274 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH 185991 11/16/2017 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETHA. 185992 11/16/2017 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PRESTON 185993 11/16/2017 017464 SCRUBS AC INC 185994 11/16/2017 015364 SEASIDE ICE, LLC 185995 11/16/2017 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES INC 185996 11/16/2017 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 185997 11/16/2017 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Description OCT COMM WATER METER:28640 PUJOL ST OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW FAC OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW CI OCT VAR WATER METERS:PWJRC OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW OLD TOW OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW VAR SITE OCT VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW CI OCT VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT OCT VAR WATER METERS:FIRE STNS ARREST, SEARCH & SEIZURE TRNG 11/27-12/1 REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC RENTAL:HARVESTON REIMB:CPRSAWARD SUBMITTAL:SKY VIEW KEYS: CRC FACILITY LOCKSMITH SRVCS:CIVIC CENTER COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 11/4/17 PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS:HALLOWEEN 2017 LAB COATS:CHILDREN'S MUSEUM SUPPLIES:ICE RINK REPAIR & MAINT OF SECURITY SYS:CIVIC CEN WAGE GARNISHMENT PAYMENT WAGE GARNISHMENT PAYMENT JAZZ @ THE MERC 11/2/17 JAZZ @ THE MERC 11/3/17 JAZZ @ THE MERC 11/9/17 Amount Paid Check Total 10.81 238.81 4,164.79 467.03 175.94 1,076.40 809.28 34,453.38 62.02 177.11 759.79 42,395.36 357.00 357.00 200.00 200.00 70.00 70.00 224.98 33.94 258.92 606.00 606.00 150.00 150.00 500.60 500.60 475.00 475.00 338.00 338.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 507.00 304.50 609.00 1,420.50 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 185998 11/16/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description OCT 2-29-458-7548:32000 RANCHO CAL OCT 2-36-122-7820:31777 DEPORTOLA R OCT 2-25-350-5119:45602 REDHAWK PKV OCT 2-30-066-2889:30051 RANCHO VISD OCT 2-02-351-5281:30875 RANCHO VISI/ OCT 2-20-798-3248:42081 MAIN ST OCT 2-10-331-2153:28816 PUJOL ST OCT 2-39-737-1063:42061 MAIN ST OCT 2-35-421-1260:41955 4TH ST LS3 OCT 2-36-531-7916:44205 MAIN ST PED OCT 2-39-043-8521:29028 OT FRONT ST OCT 2-27-805-3194:42051 MAIN ST OCT 2-29-657-2563:42902 BUTTERFIELD OCT 2-31-031-2590:28301 RANCHO CAL OCT 2-01-202-7330:VARIOUS LS -1-E UTI L OCT 2-36-171-5626:BUTTERFIELD/LA SEI OCT 2-29-479-2981:31454 TEM PKWY TC' OCT 2-29-974-7899:26953 Y N EZ RD LS3 OCT 2-05-791-8807:31587 TEM PKWY LS: 185999 11/16/2017 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY OCT 091-085-1632-0:41951 MORAGA/POOL 186000 11/16/2017 005786 SPRINT SEP 26 - OCT 25 CELLULAR USAGE/EQUIP Amount Paid Check Total 251.66 23.33 25.49 23.48 5,225.52 1,482.12 843.22 26.75 15.60 109.09 22.80 3,336.97 187.21 18.18 72,955.77 24,250.07 100.61 162.56 8,240.28 117, 300.71 262.07 262.07 4,591.56 4,591.56 186001 11/16/2017 003599 TY LIN INTERNATIONAL 8/26/17-9/30/17 SRVCS:F.V./I-15 124,826.45 124,826.45 OVRCRSS 186002 11/16/2017 010061 TEMECULA OLIVE OIL RECOGNITION -YOUTH WOMEN COMPANY LEADERS 186003 11/16/2017 008894 TIDWELL, RODNEY 186004 11/16/2017 016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS 186005 11/16/2017 018569 TYLER BUSINESS FORMS 130.50 130.50 COMPUTER PURCHASE PRGM 2,000.00 2,000.00 GRAPHIC DESIGN SRVCS:THEATER 2,790.00 2,790.00 HEALTH COVERAGE FORM:HR 30.13 HEALTH COVERAGE FORMS:HR 52.43 82.56 186006 11/16/2017 017579 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 110.00 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 186007 11/16/2017 002185 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE POSTAL SVCS:WNTR/SPRG '18 ACTIVITY GUIDE 186008 11/16/2017 002185 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE PO BOX SERVICE FEE:POLICE 55.00 165.00 8,212.05 8,212.05 452.00 452.00 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 13 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186009 11/16/2017 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. MISC RENTALS:HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL 10/27 Amount Paid Check Total 3,137.00 3,137.00 186010 11/16/2017 009101 VISION ONE, INC. OCT SHOWARE TICKETING 2,694.00 2,694.00 SRVCS:THEATER 186011 11/16/2017 013286 WEST SAFETY SERVICES, INC. NOV ENTERPRISE 911 SVCS: IT 300.00 300.00 186012 11/16/2017 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC INSTALL EQUIPMENT: EOC 3,800.00 3,800.00 186013 11/16/2017 016305 YONKER, JOHN REIMB:INSPECTOR UNIFORM SHIRTS 149.92 149.92 1001911 11/08/2017 020325 BEACON RETIREMENT REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 PLANNING 1001912 11/08/2017 020326 BROWN, PATRICE REFUND:HAWAIIAN TAHITIAN DANCE 24.80 24.80 BEG. 1001913 11/08/2017 020308 FREGOSO, JORILYNN REFUND:BEG GYMNASTICS & 37.60 37.60 TUMBLING 1001914 11/08/2017 020327 JONES, MARLESHA REFUND:SEC DEP:GYMNASIUM:CRC 200.00 200.00 1001915 11/08/2017 018703 RHEMA WORD MINISTRIES 1001916 11/08/2017 013175 RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL 1001917 11/08/2017 013175 RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL 1001918 11/08/2017 020328 SANDOVAL, JASMIN REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF 200.00 200.00 CTR A/B REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001919 11/08/2017 019553 WARREN, DOUGLAS REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B 1001920 11/08/2017 018456 WILKESON, SHERYL REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B 150.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 1001921 11/09/2017 019326 WEBSTORYTELLERS REFUND:LATE FEE:BUS LIC #035948 15.00 15.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,320,271.92 Page:13 apChkLst 11/16/2017 9:31:30AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 14 111 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,320,271.92 Page:14 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3572 11/09/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020344 MURRI ETA V.I.P. FLORIST 006714 SHERATON HOTEL 017033 MURRAY, MELISSA 004434 GRANNYS ATTIC 018583 WHICH WICH 018583 WHICH \ICH 018583 WHICH WICH 016261 AFTERSHOCK BREWING CO. 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 020249 LAUND3R.COM LLC 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 016098 CULTIVATING GOOD, INC. 014885 TEMECULA CATERING 019321 VISIT TEMECULA VALLEY 014885 TEMECULA CATERING 020342 CRAZY CAKE POP LADY 020343 CAFETERIA 15L 186014 11/21/2017 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC 186015 11/21/2017 001916 ALBERTA WEBB ASSOCIATES 186016 11/21/2017 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 186017 11/21/2017 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW 186018 11/21/2017 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES (AFN) Description GB CENTERPIECES: AUTO DEALERS GB LODGING:LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONF 9/13 GB RFSHMNTS: COLLEGE FAIR/CSU CONF GB CENTERPIECES: AUTO DEALER GB RFHSHMNTS: PIO REGIONAL MTG GB RFHSHMNTS: PIO REGIONAL MTG GB RFHSHMNTS: PIO REGIONAL MTG GB AUTO DEALERSHIP SPONSORSHIP GB SUPPLIES FOR COLLEGE FAIR GB RFHSMNTS: COLLEGE FAIR GB LAUNDER TABLE LINENS GB RFHSMNTS: COLLEGE FAIR GB RFSHMNTS: CITY ATTORNEY MEETING 10/10 GB RFSHMNTS: BROKERS APPRECIATION MTG GB REGISTRATION: '17 BRANDING SUMMIT RFSHMNTS: AUTO DEALER APPRECIATION GB RFSHMNTS: AUTO DEALER APPRECIATION GB RFRSHMNTS: LEAGUE CA CITIES CONF 9/13 DEC EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM DEBIT: ADDITION OF 4 MEMBERS FOR D PROF SVCS: CFD 01-02 BIER! PREPAY CREDIT BILLING ADJ: EXTRA WORK NOT SEP PAVEMENT REHAB:MARGARITA : P1d Replace valve bypass - Fire Station #92 DEC STAND BY FEE: POLICE DEPT Amount Paid Check Total 177.79 428.92 180.00 49.48 452.50 207.00 69.75 196.92 427.17 1,417.00 53.50 1,410.00 158.50 1,344.00 40.00 1,003.00 59.00 74.00 655.60 4.40 800.00 -243,446.35 759,302.81 454.00 7,748.53 660.00 800.00 515,856.46 454.00 1,248.00 1,248.00 Pagel apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186019 11/21/2017 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS 186020 11/21/2017 016504 ARBY'S 186021 11/21/2017 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC. 186022 11/21/2017 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 186023 11/21/2017 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS, INC 186024 11/21/2017 010350 BANNER MATTRESS, INC. 186025 11/21/2017 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE 186026 11/21/2017 020345 BOLDUC, WENDY 186027 11/21/2017 015834 BOYER, WAYNE E. 186028 11/21/2017 017428 BSSAT CORPORATION 186029 11/21/2017 013318 CARDENAS, ROBERT 186030 11/21/2017 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC 186031 11/21/2017 019468 CHS EDUCATION FOUNDATION 186032 11/21/2017 005447 CLEMENTS, BRIAN 186033 11/21/2017 012413 COLORADO WEST CONSTRUCTION 186034 11/21/2017 004412 COMPLETE TENNIS CAMP, THE Description SEP ANIMAL CONTROL SRVCS:CITY OF TEMECUL RFSHMNTS:VOLUNTEERS: SANTA'S ELECTRIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY UNIFORM SHIRTS:INFO TECH MATTRESSES: FIRE STA. 95 PARKS - EQUIPMENT REPAIR REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL DISMISSAL:322476 MOTOR UNIFORM:TEMECULA POLICE RFRSHMNTS: CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING REIMB: RFSHMNTS: EMERGENCY MGMT SUMMIT OCT LIABILITY INSURANCE: RISK MGMT REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC REIMB: UNIFORM SHIRTS REFUND:CANCELLED PERMIT:PA17-1528 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 10,000.00 344.86 2,639.50 2,560.25 3,591.00 4.00 912.62 1,227.20 383.09 35.00 2,511.44 372.60 129.01 4,448.00 200.00 162.96 300.00 369.60 10,000.00 344.86 8,790.75 4.00 912.62 1,227.20 383.09 35.00 2,511.44 372.60 129.01 4,448.00 200.00 162.96 300.00 369.60 186035 11/21/2017 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SEP INSP SVCS: MARGARITA RD: 9,476.00 9,476.00 PW12-11 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186036 11/21/2017 011922 CORELOGIC, INC. OCT PROP ID SFTWR: CODE ENFORCEMENT Amount Paid Check Total 328.50 328.50 186037 11/21/2017 013379 COSSOU, CELINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 495.60 495.60 186038 11/21/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT:LIBRARY SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES 186039 11/21/2017 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC Traffic count data collection srvcs: pw 186040 11/21/2017 020341 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STTLMNT CLAIM: 17-50 - COUNTY OF RIV 147.14 253.56 79.16 479.86 1,000.00 1,000.00 429.31 429.31 186041 11/21/2017 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & AC REPAIR & MAINTENANCE: CIVIC 227.60 HVAC INC CTR HVAC REPAIR: RON ROBERTS LIBRARY 192.00 186042 11/21/2017 011870 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN, BIO WASTE STORAGE 350.00 LLC BIN/DELIVERY:CRC 186043 11/21/2017 018491 CRONBERG PHOTOGRAPHY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 419.60 350.00 336.00 616.00 186044 11/21/2017 003272 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON CO.,INC PLOTTER PAPER & INK:GIS 359.04 359.04 DBA 186045 11/21/2017 020347 DELOYEE, HERMAN REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL 330.00 330.00 DISMISSAL:322251 186046 11/21/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 186047 11/21/2017 019293 E&F PET SUPPLIES, INC. 186048 11/21/2017 002939 ENVI RONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 186049 11/21/2017 000164 ESGILCORPORATION 186050 11/21/2017 005901 EXHIBIT ENVOY FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW: 99.75 TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 29.58 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 364.83 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF 495.91 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI 151.66 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEE 189.45 1,331.18 k-9 food & supplies: tem police 95.75 95.75 ARCGIS SOFTWARE RENEWAL:GIS 18,300.00 18,300.00 SEP PLAN CHECK SVCS: BLDG 11,023.58 11,023.58 EXHIBIT:TVM 1/21/18-4/1/18 375.00 375.00 Page .3 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186051 11/21/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. 186052 11/21/2017 013912 FUN ZONE BOAT COMPANY 186053 11/21/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 186054 11/21/2017 016552 GONZALES, MARK ALLEN 186055 11/21/2017 014405 GORM INCORPORATED 186056 11/21/2017 020235 H2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 186057 11/21/2017 004672 HAGBERG, PHILLIP K. 186058 11/21/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 186059 11/21/2017 013749 HELIXSTORM INC. 186060 11/21/2017 002126 HILLYARD FLOOR CARE SUPPLY 186061 11/21/2017 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE Description NOV INTERNET SVCS:SR CTR, SKATE PARK NOV INTERNET SVCS:CITY HALL NOV INTERNET SVCS:TCC SISTER CITY TRIP:BEACH HARBOR SEA LION T OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY RETURN MATERIALS: CITY CLERK MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: INCUBATOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CITY FACILITIES ASBESTOS & LEAD SURVEY: PW16-06 ASBESTOS & LEAD SURVEY: PW16-06 REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL DISMISSAL:322312 MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: TCC MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT SUPPLIES: IWTCM IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT:INFO TECH MATERIALS & MAINT SUPPLIES: CRC GYM MISC SUPPLIES:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVENTS MISC SUPPLIES:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVEI 186062 11/21/2017 017334 HOUSE OF AUTOMATION INC. PREV MAINT:GATE AT CIVIC CENTER Amount Paid Check Total 202.82 291.98 146.98 70.00 40.01 103.26 51.83 46.79 -26.06 44.13 360.00 1,770.46 3,000.00 2,415.00 305.00 108.74 50.16 65.65 34.73 30.83 30.50 28.71 12.33 51.10 13.04 3,431.25 4,100.90 521.35 78.00 298.00 641.78 70.00 259.96 360.00 1,770.46 5,415.00 305.00 425.79 3,431.25 4,100.90 599.35 298.00 Page4 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186063 11/21/2017 014062 ID CARD GROUP 186064 11/21/2017 009135 IMPACT MARKETING & DESIGN INC 186065 11/21/2017 016564 IMPACT TELECOM 186066 11/21/2017 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY INC 186067 11/21/2017 019085 INTERPRETERS UNLIMITED, INC. 186068 11/21/2017 000198 INTL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING 186069 11/21/2017 011020 JACKRAGLANDATELIER 186070 11/21/2017 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC 186071 11/21/2017 019122 L.A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL 186072 11/21/2017 020340 LARUE, JESSE 186073 11/21/2017 002634 LITELINES INC 186074 11/21/2017 011145 LODATO, JILL CHRISTINE 186075 11/21/2017 020336 LUSPIAN, JOCY 186076 11/21/2017 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 186077 11/21/2017 004141 MAINTEX INC 186078 11/21/2017 014392 MC COLLOUGH, JILL DENISE 186079 11/21/2017 020335 MC HOMES & INVESTMENTS INC Description PROXIMITY CARD SUPPLIES:HELP DESK THEATER PROMOTIONAL ITEMS OCT 800 SERVICES:CIVIC CENTER POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAR POOLS INTERPRETER SERVICE: TEM POLICE MBRSHP RENEWAL:COMERCHERO, J 3 YR MBRSHP RENEWAL:BUTLER, G. Recognition:Plein Air Competition PUMP REPLACEMENT PARTS: CRC POOL REPAIR:CRC POOL HANDICAP LIFT RET RELEASE: MOD TRAFFIC SIGNAL: PW15-03 MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL: PV\ REIMB: UNIFORM SHIRTS LIGHT POLE ASSEMBLIES:OLD TOWN REHAB TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS REFUND:BEAR CUB UNIV 4010.203 SIGNS AND SUPPLIES: RIGHT-OF-WAYS SIGNS: VARIOUS PARKS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARK SITES NOV PLANTSCAPE SRVCS:LIBRARY NOV PLANTSCAPE SRVCS:CIVIC CTR REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B Amount Paid Check Total 238.14 313.25 61.95 419.56 102.00 50.00 135.00 250.00 249.05 2,858.03 5,897.37 25,778.58 163.07 3,522.96 2,142.00 3,213.00 209.00 954.13 499.54 108.53 200.00 500.00 238.14 313.25 61.95 419.56 102.00 185.00 250.00 3,107.08 31,675.95 163.07 3,522.96 5,355.00 209.00 1,453.67 108.53 700.00 150.00 150.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186080 11/21/2017 019823 MERCHANTS BLDG. MAI NT. OCT JANITORIAL SVCS: VARI LLC FACILITIES 186081 11/21/2017 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. Amount Paid Check Total 20,665.99 20,665.99 07/03-10/01 DESIGN SVCS: PW17-04 5,984.47 7/03-10/01 DSGN & ENVIRON SVCS:PW1' 6,300.63 12,285.10 186082 11/21/2017 020346 MICHELENE, THEODORE REFUND:BALADJ:VIOL 305.00 305.00 DISMISSAL:322477 186083 11/21/2017 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 35.99 35.99 186084 11/21/2017 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING Repair Srvcs: Main Street Lot INC. 186085 11/21/2017 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 400.00 400.00 963.90 785.40 264.60 2,013.90 186086 11/21/2017 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY, ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: VAR 1,134.25 INC FACILITIES Replacement light bulbs:Library & CRC 184.66 Replacement light bulbs:Library & CRC 217.50 LIGHT POLE LED CONVERSION:PALA PA 3,954.59 5,491.00 186087 11/21/2017 016445 MKB PRINTING & BUSINESS CARDS: HOWE, HUNTER: 47.86 47.86 PROMOTIONAL INC INFO TECH 186088 11/21/2017 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MEMBERSHIP: JOHL-OLSON, RAND! 8,743.00 8,743.00 186089 11/21/2017 019331 NELSON, BARBARA 186090 11/21/2017 018402 NEWSMINDED, INC RECOGNITION:PLEI N AIR 600.00 600.00 COMPETITION newspaper subscription:MPSC 125.00 125.00 186091 11/21/2017 019699 NU -WAY CHRISTIAN REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 MINISTRIES RENTAL:RRSP 186092 11/21/2017 013127 ON STAGE MUSICALS STTLMNT: SHERRY SWING TEMECULA 5,195.00 5,195.00 11/5/17 186093 11/21/2017 014583 PALUMBO'S RISTORANTE, LLC RFRSHMNTS:VIPTENTSANTA'S 1,303.70 1,303.70 ELECTRIC 186094 11/21/2017 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE ADVERTISING BANNER PROGRAM: ECON DEV 5,111.25 5,111.25 Pages apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186095 11/21/2017 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 186096 11/21/2017 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 186097 11/21/2017 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 186098 11/21/2017 017446 ROSE AGAIN FOUNDATION 186099 11/21/2017 018012 SAUNDERS, CATHY 186100 11/21/2017 015364 SEASIDE ICE, LLC 186101 11/21/2017 020348 SHENKMAN & HUGHES 186102 11/21/2017 013695 SHRED -IT US JV, LLC 186103 11/21/2017 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 186104 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 186105 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 186106 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description OCT LNDSCP WATER METER:CALLE ELENITA OCT LNDSCP WATER METER:41951 MOF NOV VAR WATER METERS:PW VAR SITE NOV VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE OCT '17 PRKG CITATION ASSESSMENTS OCT RTA HARVESTON SHUTTLE: ECON DEV FY 17/18 (ME) COUNCIL CSF AWARD TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS DEPOSIT:ICE RINK SET UP:'17 WNTR SEASON CVRA DISTRICT TRANSITION SVCS FEE DOC COLLECTION & SHRED SRVCS:CITY DEPTS misc signage:events Canopy:Human Services ELECTRICAL SVC: PW15-11 BUTTERFIELD STG ELECTRICAL SVC: PW15-11 BUTTERFIELD STG ELECTRICAL SVC: PW15-11 BUTTERFIELD STG Amount Paid Check Total 116.36 1,573.79 350.55 19,970.59 3,791.50 1,660.00 1,250.00 302.40 302.40 128.10 302.40 302.40 302.40 15,000.00 30,000.00 253.00 111.87 1,061.34 47, 520.10 46,261.94 22,011.29 3,791.50 1,660.00 1,250.00 1,640.10 15,000.00 30,000.00 253.00 1,173.21 47, 520.10 46,261.94 13,551 59 13, 551.59 Page:7 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186107 11/21/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 186108 11/21/2017 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 186109 11/21/2017 007341 SOUTH COAST WINERY, INC. 186110 11/21/2017 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 186111 11/21/2017 018844 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 186112 11/21/2017 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 186113 11/21/2017 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 186114 11/21/2017 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION & Description OCT 2-29-223-9571:30395 MURR HOT SPRI NGS OCT 2-30-608-9384:28582 HARVESTON OCT 2-26-887-0789:40233 VILLAGE RD OCT 2-00-397-5059:33340 CAMINO PIEDF NOV 2-31-693-9784:26036 YNEZ RD TC1 OCT 2-33-237-4818:30499 RANCHO CAL OCT 2-31-419-2659:26706 YNEZ RD TC1 OCT 2-29-974-7568:26953 YNEZ RD TC1 OCT 015-575-0195-2:32211 WOLF VLY RD OCT 055-475-6169-5:32380 DEERHOLLOI, Sister City visit:winery tour and PEST CONTROL SERVICE: STA73 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: STA 95 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: STA 84 DESIGN & ENG SRVCS: PW15-11 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW TRAFFIC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW TRAFFIC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES: THEATER OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE CARPET CLEANING: HISTORY MUSEUM SEP 17 BUS. IMPRV DISTRICTASMNTS Amount Paid Check Total 50.08 442.43 1,456.89 10,203.45 334.41 102.03 133.60 114.77 83.84 208.18 108.00 68.00 80.00 80.00 2,028.00 6.36 -6.36 161.16 -54.42 76.76 19.90 10.48 48.27 57.57 252.32 161.16 70.00 57.57 9.02 219.65 48.93 1,200.00 145,920.55 12,837.66 292.02 108.00 228.00 2,028.00 1,138.37 1,200.00 145,920.55 186115 11/21/2017 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE NOV HIGH SPEED INTERNET:32364 54.99 54.99 OVERLND Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 186116 11/21/2017 019100 TNT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP SOUND SRVCS:VETERANS DAY LLC SYMPHONY 186117 11/21/2017 011285 USS MIDWAY MUSEUM Tourtickets:Sister City visit 186118 11/21/2017 014850 VALLEY PRINTING SERVICES, DELIVERY OF NEWSLETTER FOR INC. MAILING:COUNC 186119 11/21/2017 011114 VERBANIC, CARL REFRESHMENTS:VETERANS DAY EVENT 11/11 186120 11/21/2017 007987 WALMART Amount Paid Check Total 4,665.00 4,665.00 100.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 2,925.00 2,925.00 SUPPLIES:PPW 125.48 REC SUPPLIES: CRC 16.31 REC SUPPLIES:CRC 173.61 SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK 76.11 REC SUPPLIES: CRC 45.07 REC SUPPLIES: CRC 51.72 488.30 186121 11/21/2017 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR -233.11 CLEANING SUPPLIES CIVIC CTR 1,731.90 CLEANING SUPPLIES CIVIC CTR 61.86 1,560.65 186122 11/21/2017 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE SEPT 17 MSHCP PAYMENT 37,819.68 37,819.68 COUNTY 186123 11/21/2017 020339 WHITE, CHRIS REIMB:RESIDENT ENG TRAINING 270.79 270.79 10/30-11/2 1001922 11/16/2017 020159 DEAN, KELLY REFUND:BEG GYMNASTICS & 75.20 75.20 TUMBLING 1001923 11/16/2017 020332 SULLIVAN, SCARLETT REFUND:BEAR CUB UNIV 4005.203 167.20 167.20 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,126,725.12 Page9 apChkLst 11/21/2017 11:43:34AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 113 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,126, 725.12 Pagel 0 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017 PREPARED BY: Rudy J. Graciano, Fiscal Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017. BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of October 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of October 31, 2017 Investments City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary October 31, 2017 Par Market Book % of Value Value Value Portfolio Term City of Temecula 41000 Main Street P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92590 (951)694-6430 Days to YTM YTM Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 42.77 1 1 0.925 0.938 Retention Escrow Account 601,022.26 601,022.26 601,022.26 0.54 1 1 0.148 0.150 Letter of Credit 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 0.000 0.000 Local Agency Investment Funds 32,686,034.96 32,654,724.06 32,686,034.96 29.10 1 1 1.099 1.114 Federal Agency Callable Securities 22,000,000.00 21,875,810.00 22,000,000.00 19.59 1,300 905 1.503 1.524 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 9,000,000.00 8,962,150.00 9,000,000.00 8.01 1,020 425 1.272 1.290 Investments 112,329,763.77 112,136,412.87 112,329,763.77 100.00% 337 212 1.113 1.128 Cash Passbook/Checking 3,835,026.61 3,835,026.61 3,835,026.61 1 1 0.000 0.000 (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments 116,164,790.38 115,971,439.48 116,164,790.38 337 212 1.113 1.128 Total Earnings October 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return 110,219.22 117,523,368.24 1.10% Reporting period 10/01/2017-10/31/2017 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 425,415.14 121,604,416.70 1.04% Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 1 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 233358006-6 01-2 REF RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 505,836.64 505,836.64 505,836.64 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 233358000-6 01-2 REF ST First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 69,146.45 69,146.45 69,146.45 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213009-6 03-02 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213008-6 03-02 IMPR First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,138,442.17 1,138,442.17 1,138,442.17 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213006-6 03-02 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 742,829.89 742,829.89 742,829.89 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164741008-6 03-03IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 298,258.80 298,258.80 298,258.80 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164741006-6 03-03RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 391.67 391.67 391.67 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164741000-6 03-03SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 194,109.99 194,109.99 194,109.99 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 164742000-6 03-06SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 13,844.83 13,844.83 13,844.83 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 229462007-6 03-1 2012 RF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 41.42 41.42 41.42 0.890 0.878 0.890 1 229462009-6 03-1 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/31/2017 13,549.46 13,549.46 13,549.46 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 229462006-6 03-1 RESERV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/31/2017 17,249.52 17,249.52 17,249.52 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 229462000-6 03-1 SPECF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/31/2017 22,273.78 22,273.78 22,273.78 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94669921-6 03-1ACQ11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870 0.858 0.870 1 94669911-6 03-1ACQA11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669917-6 03-1 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669916-6 03-1 RESB11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669000-6 03-1SPTAX11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213002-6 03-2 REFU First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2017 2,779.42 2,779.42 2,779.42 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213000-6 03-2 SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 4,989.32 4,989.32 4,989.32 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94686001-6 03-4ADMIN11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 511.22 511.22 511.22 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94686005-6 03-4PREP11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 13.07 13.07 13.07 0.920 0.907 0.920 1 94686000-6 03-4RED11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 31,846.82 31,846.82 31,846.82 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94686006-6 03-4RES11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 34,050.07 34,050.07 34,050.07 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213022-6 16-01 BOND F First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2017 12,593.31 12,593.31 12,593.31 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213023-6 16-01 CAPINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870 0.858 0.870 1 276213029-6 16-01 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213028-6 16-01 IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 6,436,180.03 6,436,180.03 6,436,180.03 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213026-6 16-01 RESERV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 3,157,685.03 3,157,685.03 3,157,685.03 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 276213020-6 16-01 SPECF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 2,331.46 2,331.46 2,331.46 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 233358009-6 233358009-6 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-6 RDA-02INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 116.59 116.59 116.59 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94434161-6 RDA-02PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 79.41 79.41 79.41 0.910 0.898 0.910 1 107886000-6 RDA-06AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 68.85 68.85 68.85 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886001-6 RDA06APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 40.55 40.55 40.55 0.910 0.898 0.910 1 107886010-6 RDA06BINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 221.77 221.77 221.77 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 107886011-6 RDA06BPRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 1.46 1.46 1.46 0.680 0.671 0.680 1 107886016-6 RDA06BRES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 202,686.64 202,686.64 202,686.64 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886020-6 RDA07INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,212.99 1,212.99 1,212.99 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886021-6 RDA07PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 7.55 7.55 7.55 0.930 0.917 0.930 1 107886028-6 RDA07PROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 210,971.51 210,971.51 210,971.51 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 107886026-6 RDAO7RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,107,203.94 1,107,203.94 1,107,203.94 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343008-6 RDA10APROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 20,073.62 20,073.62 20,073.62 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343018-6 RDA10BPROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 5,218,637.03 5,218,637.03 5,218,637.03 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343000-6 RDA1OINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 157,316.04 157,316.04 157,316.04 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 136343001-6 RDA1OPRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2017 36.29 36.29 36.29 0.910 0.898 0.910 1 136343006-6 RDA1ORSRV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 1,265,779.02 1,265,779.02 1,265,779.02 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 146161000-6 RDA11AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 111.01 111.01 111.01 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 146161001-6 RDA11APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 36.47 36.47 36.47 0.900 0.888 0.900 1 94669902-3 03-1 BOND3 First American Treasury 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INT1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94434161-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343018-2 RDA 10B CIP2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 146161008-3 RDA11APROJ Federated Institutional Tax Fr 7,327,000.81 7,327,000.81 7,327,000.81 0.760 0.750 0.760 1 146161006-3 RDA11ARSRV Federated Institutional Tax Fr 1,314,308.70 1,314,308.70 1,314,308.70 0.760 0.750 0.760 1 94669921-5 03-01 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669911-5 03-01 ACQA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-5 03-01 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-5 03-01 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94669916-5 03-01 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669000-5 03-01 SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 164742006-5 03-06 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 164742000-5 03-06 SPEC Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669902-5 03-lbond fd Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686001-5 03-4 ADMIN11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94686005-5 03-4 PREP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686006-5 03-4 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-1 03-01-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 276213008-1 03-02 IMP CA Local Agency Investment Fun 15,103,984.21 15,103,984.21 15,103,984.21 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 164742006-1 03-06 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 312,548.22 312,548.22 312,548.22 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 229462007-1 03-1 2012 RE CA Local Agency Investment Fun 07/01/2017 781,370.56 781,370.56 781,370.56 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 94669911-1 03-1 ACQ A2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 3 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 164741006-1 0303-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,448,344.37 1,448,344.37 1,448,344.37 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 107886028-1 RDA 07 PRO -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 107886026-1 RDA 07 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 136343018-1 RDA 10B CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 107886006 RDA 06 RES A MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434166 RDA TABs RES MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 229462020-0 03-01 CASH USBANK 07/01/2017 794.68 794.68 794.68 0.000 0.000 1 233358050-1 01-2 SPECESC U.S. Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.360 0.355 0.360 1 229462020-2 03-01 TREASB U.S. Treasury 07/31/2017 870,796.89 870,796.89 870,796.89 0.063 0.062 0.063 1 Subtotal and Average 48,018,654.75 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 48,042,705.55 0.925 0.938 1 Retention Escrow Account ARMY CORPS Army Corps Union Bank Subtotal and Average 601,022.26 601,022.26 600,950.55 601,022.26 601,022.26 0.150 0.148 0.150 1 601,022.26 601,022.26 0.148 0.150 1 Letter of Credit 233358006-1 01-2 REFRESI ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2017 1.00 1.00 1.00 Subtotal and Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Local Agency Investment Funds SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 8,203,700.21 8,195,841.65 8,203,700.21 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,777.91 1,776.21 1,777.91 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 24,480,556.84 24,457,106.20 24,480,556.84 1.114 1.099 1.114 1 Subtotal and Average 32,645,739.92 32,686,034.96 32,654,724.06 32,686,034.96 1.099 1.114 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 3130A4G89 01207 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/24/2015 1,000,000.00 997,530.00 1,000,000.00 1.650 1.627 1.650 692 09/24/2019 3130AAME5 01226 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/30/2017 1,000,000.00 993,280.00 1,000,000.00 2.020 1.948 1.975 1,546 01/25/2022 3130AANA2 01227 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/30/2017 1,000,000.00 997,200.00 1,000,000.00 1.750 1.726 1.750 1,002 07/30/2020 3130AAW38 01228 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/22/2017 1,000,000.00 994,490.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.479 1.500 1,602 03/22/2022 3130AB3N4 01231 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/28/2017 1,000,000.00 994,550.00 1,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 1.550 727 10/29/2019 3130ABYY6 01235 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/24/2017 1,000,000.00 992,760.00 1,000,000.00 1.750 1.726 1.750 1,211 02/24/2021 3130ACN83 01238 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/30/2017 1,000,000.00 997,590.00 1,000,000.00 1.700 1.677 1.700 926 05/15/2020 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2017 Page 4 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Callable Securities 3134G67C1 01210 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 06/22/2015 1,000,000.00 998,580.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.184 1.200 233 06/22/2018 3134G8QB8 01219 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 03/29/2016 1,000,000.00 994,640.00 1,000,000.00 1.270 1.253 1.270 513 03/29/2019 3134G8PP8 01220 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 03/30/2016 1,000,000.00 991,600.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.661 1.684 1,064 09/30/2020 3134GAXX7 01224 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 11/30/2016 1,000,000.00 993,360.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 394 11/30/2018 3134GBAB8 01229 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 03/27/2017 1,000,000.00 995,090.00 1,000,000.00 1.670 1.647 1.670 877 03/27/2020 3134GBGZ9 01232 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 04/27/2017 1,000,000.00 995,860.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.964 1.991 1,548 01/27/2022 3134GBNK4 01234 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 05/30/2017 1,000,000.00 995,970.00 1,000,000.00 1.625 1.603 1.625 940 05/29/2020 3134GBL42 01237 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 09/28/2017 1,000,000.00 995,310.00 1,000,000.00 1.670 1.647 1.670 1,062 09/28/2020 3134GBR95 01239 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 10/30/2017 1,000,000.00 998,530.00 1,000,000.00 1.625 1.603 1.625 728 10/30/2019 3136G2EC7 01205 Federal National Mtg Assn 02/27/2015 1,000,000.00 996,690.00 1,000,000.00 1.300 1.282 1.300 483 02/27/2019 3136G2WT0 01216 Federal National Mtg Assn 01/27/2016 1,000,000.00 993,390.00 1,000,000.00 1.450 1.430 1.450 817 01/27/2020 3136G2XH5 01217 Federal National Mtg Assn 02/24/2016 1,000,000.00 991,930.00 1,000,000.00 1.400 1.381 1.400 845 02/24/2020 3136G3CL7 01218 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/24/2016 1,000,000.00 990,000.00 1,000,000.00 1.420 1.401 1.420 1,058 09/24/2020 3136G3TE5 01221 Federal National Mtg Assn 06/29/2016 1,000,000.00 987,260.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.233 1.250 971 06/29/2020 3136G3X59 01222 Federal National Mtg Assn 08/23/2016 1,000,000.00 990,200.00 1,000,000.00 1.100 1.085 1.100 660 08/23/2019 Subtotal and Average 20,129,032.26 22,000,000.00 21,875,810.00 22,000,000.00 1.503 1.524 905 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 3133EDND0 01196 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/11/2014 1,000,000.00 999,960.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.179 1.195 71 01/11/2018 3133EEHU7 01202 Federal Farm Credit Bank 01/14/2015 1,000,000.00 998,720.00 1,000,000.00 1.410 1.391 1.410 439 01/14/2019 3133EGJ30 01225 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/18/2016 1,000,000.00 987,970.00 1,000,000.00 1.100 1.085 1.100 747 11/18/2019 3130A4AJ1 01206 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/27/2015 1,000,000.00 999,450.00 1,000,000.00 1.140 1.124 1.140 118 02/27/2018 3130A5MH9 01211 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/26/2015 1,000,000.00 998,280.00 1,000,000.00 1.360 1.341 1.360 420 12/26/2018 3130A8ZV8 01223 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/23/2016 1,000,000.00 986,040.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 660 08/23/2019 3130AAYM4 01230 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/14/2017 1,000,000.00 999,500.00 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 133 03/14/2018 3130ABDX1 01233 Federal Home Loan Bank 05/24/2017 1,000,000.00 996,110.00 1,000,000.00 1.400 1.381 1.400 569 05/24/2019 3130AC3F9 01236 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/10/2017 1,000,000.00 996,120.00 1,000,000.00 1.420 1.853 1.878 665 08/28/2019 Subtotal and Average 9,801,354.84 9,000,000.00 8,962,150.00 9,000,000.00 1.272 1.290 425 Total and Average 117,523,368.24 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 112,329,763.77 112,136,412.87 112,329,763.77 1.113 1.128 212 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash October 31, 2017 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 5 Passbook/Checking Accounts 1453718479 WORKERS COMP BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNC 07/01/2017 17,463.79 17,463.79 17,463.79 0.000 0.000 1 SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2017 3,261.00 3,261.00 3,261.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSGen Ck Acct Gen Ck Acct Union Bank of California 3,806,998.82 3,806,998.82 3,806,998.82 0.000 0.000 1 SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2017 7,303.00 7,303.00 7,303.00 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 1 Total Cash and Investments 117,523,368.24 Run Date: 11/21/2017 - 12:38 116,164,790.38 115,971,439.48 116,164,790.38 1.113 1.128 212 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through October 2017 Fund # Fund Name Beginning Balance Receipts Disbursements Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND 002 MEASURES FUND 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 145 TEMECULA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSET TEAM 150 AB 2766 FUND 160 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 161 LARRY ROBINSON REWARD 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 170 MEASURE A FUND 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 198 PUBLIC ART 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 278 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 300 INSURANCE FUND 305 WORKERS COMPENSATION 310 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUND 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 478 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 530 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES $ 33,573,689.86 $ 7,491,930.88 $ 8,146,964.73 $ 32,918,656.01 2,183,173.81 1,949,130.60 2,183,176.69 1,949,127.72 402,519.26 434,382.51 402,519.90 434,381.87 5,573,880.52 469,778.68 8.94 6,043,650.26 276,292.64 871.95 0.41 277,164.18 131,603.37 535.80 199.50 131,939.67 197,418.40 665.58 0.29 198,083.69 135, 763.80 287.47 10, 000.19 126, 051.08 92,995.65 74,579.84 92,995.76 74,579.73 25,631.05 78.66 0.04 25,709.67 766,335.56 31,380.41 28,735.48 768,980.49 6,585,652.21 232,130.96 238,566.94 6,579,216.23 637,230.07 970,255.42 599,635.22 1,007,850.27 19,743.34 93,488.08 74,801.85 38,429.57 337,401.84 49,147.41 12,005.54 374,543.71 23,375.30 362.35 0.04 23,737.61 339, 023.74 1,820.19 18, 347.13 322, 496.80 211,887.78 126,777.93 85,039.08 253,626.63 89,913.65 6,993.37 0.14 96,906.88 12,016,258.41 278,108.05 2,974,555.55 9,319,810.91 298,042.52 216.28 - 298,258.80 16,325,901.19 42,044.74 0.19 16,367,945.74 6,431,512.83 4,667.20 - 6,436,180.03 149,110.15 288,287.58 121,976.09 315,421.64 836,585.34 202,847.42 41,408.79 998,023.97 1, 603, 289.00 183, 941.05 2.64 1, 787, 227.41 73,434.80 354,748.40 227,262.47 200,920.73 455, 054.33 418, 915.32 17, 618.21 856, 351.44 393,403.94 83,720.58 36,282.46 440,842.06 300,390.55 337,632.54 111,431.11 526,591.98 16,810,112.69 11,968.55 15,239.50 16,806,841.74 90,092.31 163.17 0.13 90,255.35 611,515.08 557.64 2,366.74 609,705.98 1,773,129.57 2,548.74 6,631.00 1,769,047.31 72,619.49 275.00 1,466.70 71,427.79 1,990,236.15 6,011.43 2,537.21 1,993,710.37 363,297.76 1,242.37 2,511.74 362,028.39 809,950.58 1,004.76 2,666.78 808,288.56 3,204,427.49 2,347.81 3,427.58 3,203,347.72 2,625.36 597.35 3,222.71 - 73,752.45 112.83 6,779.92 67,085.36 10,120.31 24.52 6,384.96 3,759.87 2,250.77 4.30 533.36 1,721.71 10,970.89 22.55 2,839.51 8,153.93 21,418.63 51.45 1,313.95 20,156.13 60,108.49 108.11 11, 641.63 48, 574.97 21,891.57 64.51 246.53 21,709.55 8,031.08 13.75 617.00 7,427.83 2,066.47 3.28 439.01 1,630.74 65,288.99 116.22 8,743.65 56,661.56 10,348.43 19.93 2,835.33 7,533.03 2,981.62 6.80 1,158.90 1,829.52 1,829.23 3.90 601.27 1,231.86 37,240.00 62.52 2,150.51 35,152.01 640.16 1.21 160.05 481.32 24,120.79 48.54 7,164.21 17,005.12 77,812.78 119.92 3,287.22 74,645.48 117, 018.41 196.86 12, 461.61 104, 753.66 145,118.65 242.37 17, 014.63 128, 346.39 4,473.70 7.14 261.64 4,219.20 12,217.85 20.28 458.40 11,779.73 52,903.41 106.28 29,919.28 23,090.41 39,358.25 62.67 3,418.25 36,002.67 537.25 1.13 188.99 349.39 6,500.41 10.42 1,241.90 5,268.93 355, 714.22 554.44 15, 069.11 341,199.55 34,204.64 104.98 0.05 34,309.57 Grand Total: $ 117,413,440.84 $ 14,158,534.98 $ 15,600,536.34 $ 115,971,439.48 Journal Entries completed after September's Treasurer's Report was issued are reflected in the Receipts / Disbursements columns. Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Citywide Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: Vendor FY 17-18 Estimated Amount Description of Purchases Downs Fueling $50,000 Vehicle Gasoline Hanks Hardware $85,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Home Depot $35,000 Miscellaneous Hardware Items Maintex $35,000 Janitorial Supplies Mission Electric $35,000 Electrical Equipment and Supplies Waxie Sanitary Supplies $40,000 Janitorial Supplies BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Resolution No. 15-28, any purchase of consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment in excess of $30,000 requires City Council action. Throughout each year, multiple City departments purchase goods, 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 miscellaneous cumulative purchase of goods, supplies and equipment for Fiscal Year 2017-18 from the vendors as indicated above. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are programmed in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 operating budgets for affected departments. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Five-year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A. for Banking Services PREPARED BY: Rudy J. Graciano, Fiscal Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Five -Year Contract with MUFG Union Bank, N.A., for banking services; 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute all necessary agreements. BACKGROUND: On September 24, 1996, the City Council awarded a professional services contract for banking services to MUFG Union Bank N.A., formerly Union Bank. This contract was awarded after an extensive request for proposal and interview process. On September 23, 2003, the City Council awarded a four-year extension of the City's contract through December 31, 2007, and on December 11, 2007, the City Council awarded a five-year extension of the contract through December 2012. The most recent contract was a five extension and was approved by the City Council on December 12, 2012. This contract expires on December 31, 2017. MUFG Union Bank is one of the largest commercial banks in the United States. It has 398 domestic branches, the majority of which are in San Diego, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The bank also has facilities in Arizona, Calgary, the Cayman Islands, Illinois, Nevada, New York, Texas, the District of Columbia, Oregon, and Washington, and two offices outside the United States. MUFG Union Bank has a very strong Government Services Department that exclusively handles public entities, ensuring that individuals experienced in meeting the needs of governmental entities service the City's accounts. City continues to be extremely satisfied with the service and cash management products that MUFG Union Bank has provided over the past twenty one years. Over the past contract periods, staff implemented a variety of cash management systems. These systems include Union Bank Online Business Center, which is used daily to download account balance and transaction detail information, to perform inquiries into the status of checks issued by the City, to perform stop payments and to transfer funds between City accounts when required. The City also uses the Union Bank Online Business Center to transmit direct deposit of payroll and benefit reimbursements to employees, as well as to transmit accounts payable information electronically to the bank's positive pay system to shield the City from potential fraud or defalcations on the City's account. The City also receives electronic fund transfers, generates wire transfers and Automated Clearing House (ACH) payments for items such as payroll taxes, accept credit cards, and to automate portions of the reconciliation of bank accounts. The City has also implemented various fraud protection services, such as ACH filters, IP restrictions, and Positive Payee Validation. Most recently, the City has began utilizing the MUFG Union Bank's Cash Letter system to remotely deposit its checks received into the bank. Based upon staff's satisfaction with the services provided by MUFG Union Bank, as well as the amount of effort that has been invested over the past and current years to implement and enhance various banking and cash management systems, staff is recommending an extension of the City's professional services agreement for banking services with MUFG Union Bank. If the City were to change banking relationships at this time, considerable time, effort and cost would be required to implement a new set of banking systems, and staff would require any bank selected to have strong presence servicing other governmental entities. MUFG Union Bank has proposed enhancements to our agreement if the City were to agree, at this time, to extend the current five year extension contract (originally set to expire December 31, 2017) for another five years. As such, MUFG Union Bank will be increasing the earnings credit rate for compensating balances from 0.40% to a managed Government fixed rate of 0.55%, which may be adjusted based on market conditions. This increased earnings credit is expected to provide an annual credit of $8,100 to be applied towards banking fees. Further, MUFG will be reducing an Unencoded Courier Deposit fee, which is expected to increase bank fee savings an additional $720. In accordance with California Government Code, the contract may be terminated with 30 days written notice by either party. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of banking services will be offset against the interest earnings credit generated on the City's account balance. The net annual cost for banking services is expected to be approximately $40,000 per year. With the lower unit cost for banking services offered by MUFG Union Bank, the City will save approximately $8,820 per year, or approximately $44,100 over the entire five year recommended contract period. ATTACHMENT: Contract for Banking Services Contract for Banking Services Between City of Temecula and MUFG UNION BANK, N.A. This CONTRACT FOR BANKING SERVICES (hereinafter "Contract"), effective January 1, 2018 by and between MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (hereinafter "Bank"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA (hereinafter "CITY"), is in accordance with California Government Code 53682. Whereas, in the judgment of the Treasurer this Contract is to public advantage; and Whereas, the CITY desires to secure a wide range of banking services to be provided by a single financial institution pursuant to a Contract; and, Whereas, Bank represents to the CITY that it meets the requisite legal and other qualifications and possesses sufficient financial strength and capacity to render the banking services sought by the CITY. Now, therefore, in consideration of mutual covenants, it is agreed that the Bank will service the CITY's banking needs for a contract period of five (5) years with an expiration date of December 31, 2023. Bank will guarantee fixed unit pricing for the banking services set forth on Exhibit A- Government Services Pricing Scenario -Price Schedule 03, All About Business Accounts and Services and Transaction Banking Services disclosure and agreement, and Government Fee Schedule per attached hereto and incorporated herein for the entire contract period. CITY will be sole selector of services to be utilized. All other standard Bank terms and conditions apply, including standard pricing, except as set forth herein. Any mutual amendments to this contract will be an addendum to this contract. This Contract may be terminated on thirty (30) days written notice by either party disclosed in the Contract for Deposit of Moneys as required by the California Government Code. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA City Manager - Aaron Adams Dated: Dated: 12/1/2018 MUFG Union Bank, N.A. e /).21 Vice President — Eileen L. Perez Attest: City Clerk - Randi Johl Dated: Approved as to form: City Attorney - Peter Thorson Dated: PO BOX 513909 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA CA 92590 EXHIBIT A - GOVERNMENT SERVICES PRICING - PRICE SCHEDULE 03 PAGE: 1 E -STATEMENT 0274-03 CA 90051-3909 0000 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 0000 0000 MASTER ACCOUNT SETTLEMENT PERIOD: 10/01/17 - 12/31/17 DATE PREPARED: NOVEMBER 10, 2017 UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION NET ACCOUNT POSITION SUMMARY AMOUNT DUE - CURRENT SETTLEMENT PERIOD $0.00 AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT $0.00 PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED SUMMARY FOR COMPLETE DETAILS H PAGE: 2 PO BOX 513909 0274-03 LOS ANGELES CA 90051-3909 ACCOUNT OFFICER: TITO D IBARROLA TELEPHONE NUMBER: (213) 236-4243 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT 0000 0000 0000 MASTER ACCOUNT SETTLEMENT PERIOD: 10/01/17 - 12/31/17 DATE PREPARED: NOVEMBER 10, 2017 UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION BALANCE SUMMARY AVERAGE BUSINESS CHECKING LEDGER BALANCE TOTAL AVERAGE LEDGER BALANCE AVERAGE ADJUSTED LEDGER BALANCE LESS: AVERAGE UNCOLLECTED FUNDS AVERAGE COLLECTED BALANCE LESS: RESERVE REQUIREMENT BALANCE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT ACTIVITY ACCOUNT POSITION EARNINGS CREDIT RATE OF 0.4000% Increase ECR from 0.40 to 0.55% NET EARNINGS ALLOWANCE - THIS MONTH LESS: CHARGES FOR BALANCE COMPENSATED SERVICES NET EARNINGS DEFICIT - SETTLEMENT PERIOD TO DATE ACCOUNT POSITION SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, YOUR ACCOUNT(S) RECEIVED A $3,230.02 BENEFIT FROM STANDARD RATES AND PRICING. COLLECTED BALANCE REQUIRED PER $1.00 OF SERVICE CHARGE IS $3,270.61 CLIENTS AND ACCOUNTS INCLUDED IN THIS ANALYSIS 2740014458 CITY OF TEMECULA-PAR 2740020830 CITY OF TEMECULA 2740020849 CITY OF TEMECULA 2740033983 CITY OF TEMECULA SERVICES PROVIDED - BALANCE COMPENSATION ACCOUNT ANALYSIS ACCT MAINTENANCE - WEB ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION FULL RECON MONTHLY MAINT POS PAY MONTHLY MAINT SERVICE DETAIL $5,883,693.04 $5,883,693.04 $5,883,693.04 145,515.62 $5,738,177.42 573,817.73 $5,164,359.69 $1,754.47 1,754.47 3,909.65 $2,155.18 BALANCE VOLUME UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE REQUIRED 4.00 $5.00/ACCOUNT 2.00 $35/ACCT/MONTH 1.00 $00/ACCT/MONTH 20.00 65,412.19 70.00 0.00 228,942.65 0.00 H PAGE: 3 PO BOX 513909 0274-03 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION CHECK PAID TRUNCATED DAILY PAID REPORT OUTSTANDING ONLY REPORT OUTSTANDING CHECK REGISTR-ITEM OTHER REPORTS TRANSMISSION OUTPUT- PER TX TRANSMISSION OUTPUT - PER ITEM WEB POS PAY -ACCOUNT BASE WEB POS PAY -MANUAL ISSUE WEB POS PAY -IMPORTED ISSUE PAYEE POS PAY ACCT BASE PAYEE NAME VALIDATION TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ARMORED CAR SERVICES BUSINESS CHECKING BRANCH DEPOSIT ELECTRONIC CREDIT ELECTRONIC DEBIT BANK STATEMENT WEB DEPOSIT ADMIN FEE CHECK PROCESSING UNENCODED COURIER DEPOSIT UB CHECKS - BRANCH DEPOSIT LOCAL CLR.HSE./BRANCH DEP. LOCAL FED DIST 12 - BRANCH DEP OTHER FED - BRANCH DEPOSIT UB CHECKS SERV. CTR DEPOSIT LOCAL CLR. HSE./SER. CTR LOCAL FED DIST 12 -SERV CTR DEP ENCODING FEE - SERV. CTR. DEP. OTHER FED - SERV CTR DEPOSIT WEEKEND PROCESSING DEBIT ERROR NOTICE CORPORATE TRUST CORPORATE TRUST - TRUSTEE FEES ACH SERVICES ACH WEB MONTHLY BASE FEE ACH WEB CREDIT TRANSACTION CA 90051-3909 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 MASTER ACCOUNT DATE PREPARED: UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION SERVICE DETAIL VOLUME UNIT PRICE 565.00 2.00 1.00 396.00 1.00 1.00 482.00 2.00 25.00 508.00 1.00 26.00 17.00 34.00 37.00 4.00 5,883.68 $.115 EACH $0.00/RPT $10.00/RPT $0.00 $10.00/REPORT $12.50/TRANS $.025/ITEM $00.00/ACCOUNT $0.25/ISSUE $0.18/ISSUE $0.00 $.025/ITEM $2.00/DEPOSIT $.15/EACH $.15/EACH $5.00/EACH $0.0894/1000 15.00 $8.00/DEPOSIT 1.00 $0.09/ITEM 16.00 $0.10/ITEM 27.00 $.14/ITEM 17.00 $.15/ITEM 6.00 $.05/ITEM 38.00 $.08/ITEM 50.00 $.08/ITEM 101.00 $.0325/ITEM 7.00 $.10/ITEM 3.00 1.00 $8.50/ITEM 875.00 2.00 $75.00/SET UP 100.00 $0.00 0000 0000 0000 NOVEMBER 10, 2017 TOTAL PRICE BALANCE REQUIRED 64.98 212,524.19 0.00 0.00 10.00 32,706.09 0.00 0.00 10.00 32,706.09 12.50 40,882.62 12.05 39,410.84 0.00 0.00 6.25 20,441.31 91.44 299,064.52 0.00 0.00 0.65 2,125.90 439.12 1,436,189.96 34.00 111,200.72 5.10 16,680.11 5.55 18,151.88 20.00 65,412.19 526.00 1,720,340.50 120.00 392,473.12 0.09 294.35 1.60 5,232.97 3.78 12,362.90 2.55 8,340.05 0.30 981.18 3.04 9,942.65 4.00 13,082.44 3.28 10,727.60 0.70 2,289.43 0.00 0.00 8.50 27,800.18 875.00 2,861,783.15 150.00 490,591.40 0.00 0.00 H Reduce unencoded courier deposit from $8.00/deposit to $4.00/deposit PO BOX 513909 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT ACH SERVICES ACH WEB CREDIT TRANSACTION ACH WEB BATCH RELEASE CASH VAULT SERVICES DEPOSIT -MIXED CASH CHECK DEPOSIT - CASH OR COIN ONLY CURRENCY DEPOSITED -UNSTRAPPED DEPOSIT ADJUSTMENT COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER SERVICE IMAGE OF DEP ITEM <30DAYS IMAGE OF DEP ITEM 31-60DAYS ELECTRONIC PAYMENT AUTHORIZAT EPA MONTHLY MAINTENANCE EPA MONTHLY MAINTENANCE ELECTRONIC TAX DEPOSIT WEB WEB IMAGE ICL ICL ICL ICL CHECK IOD INSTATAX MONTHLY MAINT INSTATAX PAYMENT CHECK MAINTENANCE - DIRECT SEND PER ITEM - DIRECT SEND FILE TRANSMISSION PER DEPOSIT - DIRECT SEND IMAGE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE FEE IOD PER ITEM FEE INFORMATION REPORTING WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB WEB PRIOR DAY REPORT ACCOUNT PRIOR DAY REPORT ACCOUNT PD BAL/SUM UPDATED PD TRANSACTIONS UPDATED CD BAL/SUM UPDATED CD TRANSACTIONS UPDATED CURRENT DAY REPT ACCOUNT CURRENT DAY REPT ACCOUNT DEPOSITED ITEMS RETURNED DEPOSITD ITEMS RETURND-CHRGBK WEB RI - MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OFFICE CASH SERVICES CURRENCY FURNISHED PAGE: 4 0274-03 CA 90051-3909 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 MASTER ACCOUNT DATE PREPARED: UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION SERVICE DETAIL VOLUME UNIT PRICE 1,009.00 $o.25 6.00 $5.00/TRANSMIS 45.00 101.00 29,746.00 4.00 $3.00/DEPOSIT $1.45/DEPOSIT $1.20/$1000 $7.00/ADJ. 2.00 $.50/ITEM 1.00 $.75/ITEM 1.00 1ST ACCOUNT 2.00 ACCOUNTS 2-10 2.00 $5.00/EACH 7.00 $1.50/EACH 1.00 414.00 19.00 36.00 $50/MONTH $0.06/ITEM $1.00/FILE $2.50 1.00 $5.00 PER MONT 1.00 $0.00 PER ITEM 1.00 2.00 788.00 450.00 263.00 182.00 1.00 2.00 $35.00/ACCOUNT $35.00/ACCOUNT $0.08/ITEM UPD $0.08/ITEM UPD $0.08/ITEM UPD $0.08/ITEM UPD $50.00/ACCOUNT $50.00/ACCOUNT 2.00 $6.25/ITEM 1.00 $5.00 PER MONT 3,423.13 $1.30/$1000 0000 0000 0000 NOVEMBER 10, 2017 TOTAL PRICE BALANCE REQUIRED 252.25 825,011.20 30.00 98,118.28 135.00 441,532.26 146.45 478,980.73 35.70 116,760.75 28.00 91,577.06 1.00 3,270.61 0.75 2,452.96 10.00 32,706.09 20.00 65,412.19 10.00 32,706.09 10.50 34,341.40 50.00 163,530.47 24.84 81,241.94 19.00 62,141.58 90.00 294,354.84 5.00 16,353.05 0.00 0.00 35.00 114,471.33 70.00 228,942.65 63.04 206,179.21 36.00 117,741.94 21.04 68,813.62 14.56 47,620.07 50.00 163,530.47 100.00 327,060.93 12.50 40,882.62 5.00 16,353.05 4.45 14,554.21 H PO BOX 513909 LOS ANGELES ACCOUNT OFFICER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL ACCOUNT OFFICE CASH SERVICES DEPOSITED CURRENCY TEAM STOP PAYMENTS WEB ACCT RECON STOP PMT WEB STOP PAYMENT RENEWAL WEB STOP SINGLE INQUIRY WEB NUMBER STOP ACCOUNTS ELECTRONIC WIRE TRANSFER ACCT TRANSFER END-OF-DAY/WEB WIRE TRANSFER MONTHLY FEE/WEB OUTGOING DOMESTIC WIRE/WEB ZERO BALANCE ACCOUNTS CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT SUB LEVEL 1 PAGE: 5 0274-03 CA 90051-3909 TITO D IBARROLA (213) 236-4243 MASTER ACCOUNT DATE PREPARED: UNION BANK ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 AFFILIATION SERVICE DETAIL TOTAL CHARGES: BALANCE COMPENSATED SERVICES SERVICES PROVIDED - FEES WAIVED CUSTOMER SERVICE ACTIVITIES NON -CUSTOMER CASH PAID ON -US VOLUME UNIT PRICE 60.00 $1.50/$1000 1.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 $10.00/STOP PA $00.00/RENEWAL $2.00/INQUIRY STOP ACCOUNT $2.50/EACH $25.00/EACH $8.00/EACH 1.00 $35.00/EACH 1.00 $20.00/MONTH 5.00 $5.00/PER CHEC 0000 0000 0000 NOVEMBER 10, 2017 TOTAL PRICE 0.09 10.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 5.00 25.00 24.00 35.00 20.00 3,909.65 25.00 TOTAL CHARGES: WAIVED SERVICES 25.00 BALANCE REQUIRED 294.35 32,706.09 0.00 32,706.09 0.00 16,353.05 81,765.23 78,494.62 114,471.33 65,412.19 12,786,937.73 H EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2017 Government Services Fee Schedule MUFG 1) UnionBanke Look for these convenient online services. Many products and services are available online through the Financial Center. Conducting your transactions online can help provide convenience, cost savings, and efficiencies for your business. With a single sign -on through one point of entry, you can collect or disburse funds; obtain account information; view paid checks, deposit tickets, and statements; initiate wire transfers; and more. ACH 10-12 Commercial Deposit Supplies 2 Deposited Items Returned 4, 8 Electronic Receivables 10 Image on Demand 8, 13, 25 Information Reporting 14-15 Lockbox 16-19 Online Statements 7 Positive Pay 22-23 Remote Deposit 25-26 Stop Payments 9, 25 Tax Payment with InstaTax° 26 Trade Services 30-32 Wire Transfers 28-29 See our All About Business Accounts & Services and Transaction Banking Services Disclosure and Agreement for additional details of terms and conditions governing your accounts and services. All pricing subject to change without notice, except as otherwise provided by applicable law. Not all fees and charges are eligible for offset through your earnings allowance. These ineligible fees and charges will be directly charged to your account. TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL SERVICES 1 Basic Account Services 1 Check Processing Services 3 Commercial Cash Services (Centralized Cash Vaults) 5 Contractor Retention Funds Service 6 Corporate Trust Services 6 Custody Services 6 Foreign Exchange Services 7 Government Customer Service 7 Training and Implementation Services 9 Transportation Services 9 Zero Balance Account (ZBA) Service 9 TRANSACTION BANKING SERVICES 10 Automated Clearing House (ACH) Origination Services 10 ACH Receipt Services 11 E -Lockbox Service 12 Controlled Disbursement Service 13 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Services 14 Information Reporting Service 14 International Request for Transfer Service 15 Investment Services 16 Lockbox Services 16 Online Banking Services 19 Online Services @ unionbank.com 19 Integrated Payables Services 20 Payroll Services 21 Positive Pay Services 22 Property Tax Payments Via Electronic Funds Transfer Services 23 Receivables Straight Through Processing Services 23 Reconcilement Services 24 Remote Deposit Services 25 Sweep Service 26 Tax Payment with InstaTax° Service 26 Total Biller Solution Service 26 Wire Transfer Services 28 TRADE SERVICES 30 Collections—Incoming and Outgoing 30 Export Letters of Credit 30 Import Letters of Credit 31 Standby Letters of Credit 31 Other Trade Services 32 The lowest -priced option for each service or channel is highlighted for your convenience. GENERAL SERVICES BASIC ACCOUNT SERVICES Account Analysis Monthly Maintenance and Statement Delivery Web Mail Both 75.00 per account $ 25.00 50.00 Statements (822 Format) Monthly Maintenance per relationship $ 30.00 Transmission Output each $ 20.00 Secure Message Setup $ 100.00 Secure Message per diskette $ 30.00 Account Analysis Earnings Allowance The rate is set each month based on current market conditions and is subject to change without prior notice. Charges for some services are offset by collected balances, and some may be subject to direct charges. Account Analysis Late Fee Earnings deficits remaining unpaid by the date specified on the Account Analysis statement will be assessed a late fee (compounded monthly). Deficit and late assessment amounts are subject to direct debit to the account. Late Fee per month 4% Deposit Administration Fee The Deposit Administration Fee may include FDIC assessment charges, financing corporation (FICO) charges, and other charges provided by law and may also include administrative expense incurred by the Bank in providing depository services. The FDIC charges member Insured Depository Institutions risk- based assessments to cover the costs associated with providing deposit insurance under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as well as FICO assessments to cover the financing costs associated with the Federal Savings and Loan Crisis of 1987 The Deposit Administration Fee will be assessed monthly at a rate per $1,000 of average monthly adjusted ledger balance. The charge is variable and is subject to change by the Bank at any time without notice. Bank Account Services Bank Statements Web Mail Both Paper Statements (Without Check Images) each $ 5.00 35.00 40.00 Paper Statements (With Check Images)— Mailed Front Image each $ 27.00 Front and Back Images each $ 32.00 CD of Check Images CD each $ 50.00 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ 20.00 Per Transmission each $ 10.00 Per Item each $ .05 ATM Deposit per deposit $ 2.00 Branch/Mail Deposits per deposit $ 8.00 Night Drop Deposits per deposit $ 16.00 1 Checks Paid Against Account Per Month each $ .20 Vendor Services consult account manager Vendor Bill Processing Fee $ 7.50 Night Depository Rental per month $ 2.00 Foreign Currency Demand Account (FCDA) Monthly Maintenance per account $ 50.00 Third -Party Control Account Setup per account $ 600.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 75.00 Non -Standard Bank Agreement each $ 600.00 Excess Activity Charge For each limited transaction in excess of six each monthly statement cycle (money market accounts) or calendar month (savings accounts and money market accounts where the statement cycle date was requested to be on a specific day); includes telephone, online, and overdraft transfers. Savings per excess activity $ 15.00 Money Market per excess activity $ 15.00 Checks/Deposit Slips Printed/Barcode Labels consult account manager Rejects of > 2% of Checks Written and Deposit Slips as the Result of Non -Standard MICR per item $ .25 Deposit Receipt Mailed each $ 2.00 Nonsufficient Available or Uncollected Funds (NSFs/UCFs) Nonsufficient Available Funds (NSFs) Item Charges Checks or other transactions presented against nonsufficient available funds, whether paid or unpaid: Nonsufficient Funds per item $ 35.00 Daily Maximum 10 items Overdraft Balance Charges Overdraft balances and related fees are charged the Union Bank® Reference Rate plus 4.0% per annum, computed daily, with a minimum daily charge of $10.00, assessed from the time such overdraft balances are created and related fees are incurred. The minimum daily charge and accrued interest are then added to the overdraft balance. Uncollected Funds (UCFs) Customer usage of UCFs is charged the Union Bank Reference Rate plus 4.0% per annum (10% minimum), computed on the average daily usage of uncollected funds for the month in question. Other Services ACH Blocked Account Monthly Maintenance ACH Blocked Debit/Credit First Account $ 30.00 Accounts 2+ each $ 10.00 ACH Debits and Credits per item $ .20 Account Notifications $ FREE Transmission Notifications $ FREE Check Cashing per item $ 2.75 Clerical Work (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Commercial Deposit Supplies... refer to unionbank.com/supply Foreign Drafts Purchase each $ 45.00 Money Order Purchase each $ 5.00 Official Check Purchase (Cashier's Check) each $ 7.00 2 Financial Center Security Tokens each $ FREE Special Handling and Special Processing Options consult account manager Training and Implementation Services see page 9 CHECK PROCESSING SERVICES Our Check Processing services provide flexible options and convenience for improved cash flow and easier transaction reporting. The prices for all of the following customer service options are in addition to the basic returned item fee. Check Processing Check -Only Deposits Service Center -Un -Encoded per deposit $ 8.00 Service Center -Pre -Encoded per deposit $ 8.00 ATM per deposit $ 2.00 Branch/Night Depository/Mail Depositper deposit $ 2.00 Checks Deposited Branch ATM Service Center Union Bank Items per item $ Local Clearing House per item $ Local Fed, District 12 per item $ Other Fed per item $ Canadian Checks in USD per item $ Encoding Fee per item $ .18 .20 .20 .20 3.00 N/A .18 .20 .20 .20 3.00 N/A 18 .20 .20 .20 4.50 .20 Subventions (Customer) each $ 5.00 Subventions (Non -Customer) each $ 35.00 Pre-Sort/Co-Endorsed Service Per Deposit -Equity Participant per bank, per day $ 9.50 Per Deposit -Regular Participant per bank, per day $ 25.00 Exception Processing Reject Processing Check Processing Rejects > .7% per item $ .65 Non -Machinable Deposit per deposit $ 2.00 Non -Machinable Items per item $ .60 Reject Reporting Daily Faxed Report per month/per acct $ 75.00 Daily Reject Reporting Mail per month/per acct $ 125.00 Monthly Faxed Report per month/per acct $ 60.00 Monthly Mailed Report per month/per acct $ 110.00 Deposit Corrections Deposit Correction Notice per item $ 8.50 Documentation for Deposit Corrections Less Than $50 per document $ 8.00 Deposit Correction Reporting -Fax Daily Reconcilement per month/per acct $ 75.00 Daily Reconcilement Summary per month/per acct $ 25.00 Daily Location Detail per month/per acct $ 50.00 3 Adjustments Pre -Encoded Errors per adjustment $ 3.50 Pre -Sort Encoding Errors per adjustment $ 18.00 Check Sent for Collection $ 30.00 Deposited Items Returned Deposited Items Returned Returned Item -Charge Back to Accountper item $ Re -Cleared Item -Re -Deposited per item $ Charge Back and Re -Clear Reporting Copy/Image or Deposited Items Returned on the Web Items Made Available for Inquiry each $ Items Made Available for Decisioning each $ Monthly Maintenance $ Daily Data Transmission per transmission $ per item $ Fax -Image Image Fax Notification per item $ 10.00 Duplicate Advice per item $ 10.50 12.00 6.00 1.50 2.50 5.00 20.00 .25 Returned Item Large Dollar Early Warning Report Warnings Reported per item $ *Additional fees may apply. Please see Information Reporting Service. Web 5.00 Info Reporting* 7.00 Custom Instruction Options Alternate Account Number per account $ 5.00 Alternate Mailing Address $ FREE Data Entry for Custom Fields per keystroke $ .01 Disposition Change per item $ 7.50 Endorsement Guaranteed per item $ 5.00 Alternate Bank of First Deposit Monthly Maintenance per account $ 35.00 Requalified Returned Item per item $ 7.00 State of California -Any Authorized Vendor WIC Reporting Data File Transmission (Maximum $275) each S 25.00 WIC Item Reported each $ .01 Deposited Foreign Checks Returned each $ 5.00 Endpoint Analysis Reports These reports provide deposit profile information based on an individual deposit or a daily or cycle summary. Each report contains the item count and dollar value associated with each endpoint, indicates the percentage breakdown of item and dollar amount by Federal Reserve District, and provides the receipt time by deposit and availability assigned by item. Float Analysis Relationship Account Location Individual Deposits per report $ Single Day Report per report $ Multiple Day Report (Up to One (1) Month) per report $ File Output per report $ N/A 300.00 500.00 500.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 500.00 N/A N/A 150.00 500.00 4 COMMERCIAL CASH SERVICES (CENTRALIZED CASH VAULTS) Union Bank offers Commercial Cash services with state-of- the-art high-speed currency verification systems for your cash deposits and cash order needs. Commercial cash vaults are located in major cities throughout the United States. Deposit Services Cash Vault Deposits Cash and Coin Only per deposit $ 1.50 Mixed Deposits (Cash and Checks Combined) per deposit $ 3.00 Envelope Deposits per envelope $ 1.75 Currency Deposited -Strapped (Per $1,000) $ .95 Currency Deposited -Unstrapped (Per $1,000) $ 1.20 Coin Deposited Standard Bag/Bulk Coin (FRB Specifications)...each $ 2.75 Non -Standard per bag $ 4.00 Rolled Coin in Bag Surcharge per bag $ 5.00 Deposit Adjustments each $ 7.50 Cash Order Services Cash Vault Orders Prearranged Standing Orders each $ 3.00 Batch Cash Order each $ 3.00 Touchtone Cash Orders each $ 3.25 Cash Order -Web each $ 2.50 Telephone/Customer Service Associate Orders each $ 12.00 Late Order (After 11:00 a.m. PT) each $ 14.50 Emergency Order each $ 50.00 Currency Orders (Per $1,000) $ 1.00 New Currency (When Available, Per $1,000) $ 1.20 Coin Orders Per Box $ 5.00 Per Half -Box ($.05, $.25, and $1) $ 2.50 Per Roll (Individual Rolls) $ .15 Per Bag (Bulk) $ 2.00 Changed/Cancelled Cash Order $ 8.00 Daily Cash Order Report per month $ 100.00 Cash Vault Reporting per location/month $ 5.00 Partial Strap Surcharge per strap $ 2.00 Branch Office Cash Services -Night Depository/ATM/Branch Cash Deposit Verified (Per 81,000) $ 1.40 Coin Deposited Standard Bags (FRB Specifications) per bag $ 10.00 Loose Coin Bagged per bag $ 7.00 Cash Orders (Per $1,000) $ 1.30 Coin Orders per roll $ .25 per box $ 5.00 5 CONTRACTOR RETENTION FUNDS SERVICE Union Bank's contractor retention escrow focuses exclusively on helping contractors keep their retention funds working for them. Retention funds can be a source of revenue for your business. Setup Interest -Earning Retention Accounts (One Time) $ FREE Setup Pledged Securities Escrow and Standby Letters of Credit (One Time) per account S 1,250.00 Disbursement Fee for Pledged Securities Escrow and Standby Letters of Credit Accounts Only each $ 125.00 CORPORATE TRUST SERVICES Acceptance Fee consult account manager Annual Administration consult account manager Service to Holders Original Issuance of Bonds Transfers Between Holders $ 5.00 Preparation and Reporting Payment to Holders on Form 1099 and Form 599 (Minimum $150) $ 1.50 Calls/Redemptions (Minimum $350) $ 5.00 Transaction Charges Investment Agreements (Purchase and Setup) $ 500.00 Dissemination Agent (If Applicable) per event $ 225.00 Disbursement $ 35.00 Investment $ 60.00 Check or Wire Transfer $ 35.00 Charges for out-of-pocket expenses such as stationery, postage, insurance, telecommunication, and publication of notices and fees of such outside professionals as attorneys, accountants, or other agents will be billed at 6% of the annual administration fee. CUSTODY SERVICES Union Bank provides a comprehensive range of custody and securities lending services for public and nonprofit agencies, including asset safekeeping, trade settlement, principal and income collection, daily cash management, monthly cash and asset statements, and Internet account access. Depending on unique portfolio holdings, transaction activities, and reporting requirements, customized fee schedules will typically include the following components: Monthly Administration Fees Transactions consult account manager Holdings consult account manager Disbursements consult account manager Pay Downs consult account manager Minimum Annual Aggregated Fee consult account manager 6 FOREIGN EXCHANGE SERVICES Improve international trade profitability using Union Bank's competitively priced Foreign Exchange services—from basic spot purchases to hedging strategies, and from wire payment services to foreign currency demand accounts and foreign currency time deposits. In addition to the wire fees* the Bank charges an exchange rate markup, subject to transaction size, market conditions, and other factors. A monthly account fee is charged for foreign currency demand accounts. For additional information, contact Investment Banking and Markets Foreign Exchange at (800) 325-9422. *Please see Wire Transfer Services. GOVERNMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE Receive fast, efficient service from the convenience of your computer or telephone. Government customer service offers online and touchtone access, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Customer service associates are available between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday. Information Services Provides ledger balance and status of checks and deposits and account activity. Inquiries Inquiry each $ Cust. Touchtone Service 7.00 35.00 Retrieval Services Provides images and copies of checks, deposit slips, deposited items, and statements. Also available through Information Reporting Service. View Image of Check and Deposit Slip Online Statements Touchtone* Mail or Fax Up to 120 Days .50 N/A 35.00 Images 1-20 each $ FREE 7.00 35.00 Images 21-50 each $ .10 7.00 35.00 Images 51+ each $ .25 7.00 35.00 *Not available for deposit slips. View Image of Deposited Items (Non -Union Bank Item) Online Statements Touchtone Mail or Fax Less Than 30 Days per item $ .50 N/A 35.00 31-60 Days per item $ .75 N/A 35.00 61-90 Days per item $ 1.00 N/A 35.00 91-120 Days per item $ 1.25 N/A 35.00 121+ Days per item $ 2.00 N/A 35.00 7 Image on Demand Web Image Inquiry for Checks, Deposit Slips, and Deposited Items Monthly Maintenance $ 5.00 Per -Image Fee Images 0-100 $ FREE Images 101+ per image $ .25 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ Per Transmission each $ Per Item each $ View Image of Deposited Items Returned Web Touchtone Mail Fax Items Made Available for Inquiry per item $ 33.00 Items Made Available for Decisioning per item $ 33.00 Monthly Maintenance $ N/A 20.00 10.00 .05 1.50 N/A 30.00 2.50 5.00 N/A N/A 30.00 N/A Copy of Statement* Web Touchtone Mail Fax Previous Month(s) per copy $ per page $ Snapshot per copy $ per page $ 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 5.00 N/A 12.00 N/A 35.00 N/A 35.00 N/A N/A 35.00 N/A 35.00 *Statement copies do not include checks or images of checks. Deposit Reconstruction- Per Occurrence Customer Service Associate (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Internal Bank Activity Web Touch- tone Branch/ Direct Access Cust. Service Book Transfer per transfer $ Account Transfer per transfer $ Mailed Confirmation of Transfer each $ 5.00 2.50 N/A N/A 5.00 2.00 N/A 6.00 5.00 30.00 30.00 5.00 Miscellaneous Services -Customer Service Associate Non -Customer Check Cashing Fee each $ 10.00 Endorsement Verification per inquiry $ 15.00 Account Notifications $ FREE Transmission Notifications $ FREE Wire Transfer Research per inquiry $ 6.00 Standard Bank Confirmations each $ 15.00 Miscellaneous Special Handling (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Legal Processing Fee per item $ 50.00 LAIF Activity LAIF (Customer) each $ LAIF (Non -Customer) each $ Research Services Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 20.00 25.00 8 Cust. Stop Payments* Web Touchtone Serv. Stop Payment each $ 15.00 12.00 32.00 Automatic 6 -Month Renewal each $ 10.00 10.00 10.00 Range Stop each $ 15.00 N/A 26.00 *Stop payment orders for bank accounts and Full and Partial Reconcilement plans. Official Check (Cashier's Check) each $ 10.00 Money Orders each $ 30.00 TRAINING AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES Union Bank offers convenient and cost-effective Web -based training sessions several times per week for many of our products. Telephone and on-site training are also available. Web -Based Training per hour $ FREE Telephone Training (Minimum $25) per 30 -minute increment $ 25.00 On -Site Training (Including Travel Time) per hour $ 100.00 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Our Transportation Services Group coordinates the safe, convenient, and efficient transportation of banking materials between Union Bank and its customers using armored car and courier services. Armored car and courier services are the direct agents of the customer; however, Union Bank will recommend the service that best satisfies customer needs and requirements. Negotiable items (currency, coin, bearer bonds, etc.) are transported in dual custody by armored cars, while courier services accommodate checks, bookkeeping material, and other non-negotiable items. Armored Car and/or Courier Services cost + 50% ZERO BALANCE ACCOUNT (ZBA) SERVICE The Zero Balance Account (ZBA) service provides consolidation of funds within Union Bank into one concentration account in order to reduce borrowing, maximize cash control, and reduce the costs of multiple account transfers. Account balances are automatically offset on a daily basis from the concentration account, thereby maintaining a constant balance of zero. Monthly Maintenance Concentration Account $ 35.00 Accounts 1-10 each $ 25.00 Accounts 11+ each $ 15.00 9 TRANSACTION BANKING SERVICES AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) ORIGINATION SERVICES ACH Origination services provide a variety of payment services that electronically make and collect payments. Funds disbursement facilitates direct deposit and vendor payments. Funds collections, such as loan payments, dues, and contributions, can be made using a variety of electronic payment options, such as recurring payments, Web- or telephone -initiated payments, and business payments with remittance information. ACH Origination services also enable collection of truncated checks. Web Delivery Provides complete ACH file formatting, database management, and transmission capabilities. Setup (One Time) per service $ 200.00 Monthly Maintenance Per Account $ 100.00 Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) Items 1-100 $ FREE Items 101+ each $ .25 Same Day ACH Origination Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) each $ .45 Internet Batch Release (Maximum $70) each $ 7.00 Electronic Receivables Services Provides Online Bill Pay and Telephone Pay services. Setup (One Time) per setup Monthly Maintenance (Per Service) First Account 300.00 125.00 Additional Accounts (Maximum $400) each $ 75.00 Transaction Fees (ACH Debit) All Consumer -Authorized Transactions each $ 1.00 All Corporate Credit Card or Debit (CCD) Transactions each $ 1.00 Credit Card Authorization each $ .75 Standard ACH Return/File each $ 2.00 Batch Release each $ 3.00 Direct Send and Vendor Delivery Customers can automate disbursements and collections by using ACH to electronically originate direct deposits and payments. Setup (One Time) per setup $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance $ 125.00 Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) All Volume up to 500 Transactions each $ .12 All Volume from 501 to 5,000 Transactions each $ .11 All Volume from 5,001 to 10,000 Transactions each $ .10 All Volume Greater Than 10,000 Transactions each $ .09 10 Same Day ACH Origination Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) All Volume up to 500 Transactions each $ .30 All Volume from 501 to 5,000 Transactions each $ .25 All Volume from 5,001 to 10,000 Transactions each $ .20 All Volume Greater Than 10,000 Transactions each $ .15 Transmissions (Maximum $220) each $ 20.00 Vendor (ADP and/or Ceridian) each $ 10.00 ACH Standard Charges ACH Suspended File each $ 75.00 ACH Over the Limit per batch/file S 50.00 Addenda Records each $ .05 Additional Testing per test $ 100.00 Composite File per month $ 20.00 Dishonored/Disputed Entries each $ 15.00 Manual Maintenance per account $ 75.00 NACHA Rule Book each $ 45.00 Web/ Notification of Change/Return Transmission* Fax Mail per item 7.00 10.00 15.00 *Transmission fees apply. Unauthorized ACH Return each $ 10.00 Premium Window Surcharge per item $ .10 Redistribution each $ .40 Rejects/Reversals/Deletions per item/batch $ 35.00 Tracers each $ 25.00 Optional Output Reports per month $ 125.00 per item $ .15 ACH Acknowledgment Report (Via Web and Email) each $ 6.00 ACH File Acknowledgment Transmission (Maximum $250) each $ 25.00 Custom Reports/Programming (Minimum S150) per hour $ 150.00 Automatic 2 -Day Account Prefunding....per month $ 25.00 Automatic 2 -Day Account Prefunding NSF per month $ 50.00 Manual Account Prefunding per batch/file S 125.00 Fines cost + 35% Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 ACH International Credit (North America) each $ 5.00 Return/Notification of Change (North America) each $ 10.00 Credit (Europe) each $ 5.00 Return/Notification of Change (Europe) each $ 10.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 ACH RECEIPT SERVICES ACH Receipt services facilitate the secure receipt of payments and remittance data while protecting your accounts against fraud. 11 Electronic Payment Authorization Our Electronic Payment Authorization service allows you to restrict incoming ACH activity, which safeguards your accounts against the posting of unauthorized ACH transactions. Setup (One Time) per account $ 50.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 20.00 Accounts 2-10 each $ 15.00 Accounts 11+ each $ 10.00 Manual Maintenance per account $ 75.00 Trading Partner Setup (Account Filters) Partner and Instruction each $ 15.00 Change to Existing Authorization (Purge, Revoke, Reset) each $ 5.00 Tracers each $ 20.00 Reporting and Decisioning per month $ 10.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Government Electronic Payments Setup (One Time) per setup $ 200.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 125.00 Transaction Fees (Debit and/or Credit) per item $ .15 Universal Payment Identification Code (UPIC) Universal Payment Identification Codes (UPICs) are permanent and secure bank account identifiers that allow companies to receive electronic credit payments without divulging sensitive bank information. UPICs enable you to openly share your account information (e.g., print on invoices) to promote the receipt of electronic payments. Debits initiated with UPICs are blocked, reducing the risk of unauthorized debits to your accounts. Setup (One Time) per setup $ 25.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 15.00 E -LOCKBOX SERVICE Our E -Lockbox service expedites the receipt and reporting of payments from electronic bill payment services such as online banking and consumer payments originated online. The biller electronically receives a concentrated lump sum credit to a designated checking account. Remittance detail is transmitted in standard or custom format to be uploaded to the biller's accounts receivable system. Setup (One Time) per setup $ 150.00 Custom Programming (Optional)— Minimum S150 per hour $ 150.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 150.00 Transmissions per file S 10.00 Items 1-250 each $ .10 Items 251-1,000 each $ .09 Items 1,001+ each $ .08 Returned Items Manual Fax per item $ 25.00 Reversals per item $ 15.00 Remake of Transmission each $ 20.00 Tracers each $ 20.00 12 Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 CONTROLLED DISBURSEMENT SERVICE The Controlled Disbursement service provides early -morning dollar totals of checks presented for payment at the disbursing bank. Daily presentments are funded from your Union Bank accounts. The service provides maximum control over daily disbursements and eliminates the uncertainty of when checks will be presented for payment. Monthly Maintenance 1 Account $ 225.00 2 Accounts each $ 150.00 3 Accounts each $ 125.00 4 Accounts each $ 100.00 5-9 Accounts each $ 85.00 10+ Accounts each $ 75.00 Zero Balance Accounts $ FREE Account Analysis $ FREE Statements $ FREE Paid Checks Items 1-5,000 each $ .18 Items 5,001-10,000 each $ .17 Items 10,001+ each $ .16 Check Verification—Missing Signatures per check $ 50.00 Check Processing Rejects > 2% per item $ .75 Returned Items per check $ 12.50 Copy/Image Services Web Image Inquiry/Copy of Checks Monthly Maintenance per account $ FREE Image on Demand Web Image Inquiry for Checks, Deposit Slips, and Deposited Items Monthly Maintenance $ 5.00 Per -Image Fee Images 0-100 $ FREE Images 101+ per image $ 0.25 Fax of Non -Check Items per item $ 12.00 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ 20.00 Per Transmission each $ 10.00 Per Item each $ .05 CD each $ 50.00 per image $ .05 Reproduced CD each $ 35.00 Fees supersede Analyzed Checking Account and Account Reconcilement per -item charges. Activity Notification Using Information Reporting Service* *Additional fees may apply. Please see Information Reporting Service. Training and Implementation Services see page 9 13 ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE (EDI) SERVICES EDI services include Origination and Receipt capabilities. EDI Origination provides the ability to collect and disburse funds with associated payment information. Funds can be disbursed by ACH or check. EDI Receipt provides access to electronic payments with remittance information in electronic or paper format. We offer a variety of formats, such as 820— Payment, 827—Return, 824—Acknowledgment Detail, 997— Acknowledgment Summary, 823—Lockbox, and 822—Account Analysis. Origination Setup per account $ 150.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 150.00 Transactions each $ .10 Addendum Addenda 1-1,000 each $ Addenda 1,001-5,000 each $ Addenda 5,001+ each $ Balancing per transaction $ RDFI Account Validation per transaction $ Transmissions (Maximum $220 Per Month) each $ Transmission Remake each $ Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ Return — File per item $ Return—Transmission (Maximum $220) each $ Receipt Setup per account $ 150.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 70.00 Transactions Transactions 1-4 each $ 5.00 Transactions 5+ Paper Format each $ .40 Electronic each $ .10 Addendum Paper Format each $ Electronic each $ Transmissions (Maximum $220 Per Month) each $ File Remake each $ Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ Fax Retransmittal each $ Research (Minimum $50) per hour $ Training and Implementation Services see page 9 .10 .05 .04 .01 .01 20.00 20.00 150.00 50.00 2.00 20.00 .12 .07 20.00 25.00 150.00 5.00 50.00 INFORMATION REPORTING SERVICE Our Information Reporting service is designed to assist you in the management of cash by providing information on activity posted to accounts at Union Bank and on accounts maintained at other institutions. Consolidated reports provide details of transaction activity across all bank accounts, enabling you to monitor your overall cash position. Previous Day Reporting Includes Positive Pay transactions in Summary/Detail, Controlled Disbursement posted transactions, and incoming domestic and international data exchange transactions. 14 Balance Summary/Detail Reports Web (Includes U.S. Dollar and Foreign Currency Accounts) First Account per month $ 90.00 Additional Accounts each $ 80.00 Transaction Charge per item reported $ .15 Consolidation Account per month $ 100.00 Automated Report of Deposit Per Month per account $ 60.00 Transaction Charge per deposit reported $ .20 Consolidated Receivables Report per month $ 50.00 EDI Receipt Report per month $ 60.00 Entry Collection Details (ACH) per month $ 100.00 Transaction Charge per detail item $ .15 Sweep Account Report per month $ 20.00 Intra -Day Reporting Includes Controlled Disbursement transactions in Summary/ Detail, Float Adjustments, and Same Day Positive Pay Exceptions. Consolidated Summary/Detail Reports Web (Includes U.S. Dollar and Foreign Currency Accounts) First Account per month $ 75.00 Additional Accounts each $ 65.00 Transaction Charge per item reported $ .20 Consolidated Payables Report per month $ 50.00 Wholesale Lockbox Detail Reports First Account per month $ 65.00 Additional Accounts each $ 45.00 Transaction Charge per deposit $ .20 Pooling Report Setup $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 50.00 Returned Item Large Dollar Early Warning Report per month $ 20.00 Data Exchange -Outgoing Balance Reporting Domestic Monthly Maintenance per account $ 120.00 Domestic Transaction Charge per item reported $ .25 SWIFT940 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 120.00 per line item $ .50 SWIFT942 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 120.00 per line item $ .50 View Image of Check or Deposit Slip up to 120 Days Images 1-20 each $ FREE Images 21-50 each $ .10 Images 51+ each $ .25 Transmissions each $ 10.00 per item $ .18 Research/Handling (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ 150.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 INTERNATIONAL REQUEST FOR TRANSFER SERVICE Initiate transfer requests for your accounts overseas through Union Bank's Financial Center. Using our Wire and Internal Transfer application, send transfer instructions to your foreign 15 bank and conveniently repatriate funds, make local and/or third - party payments, or concentrate funds from multiple accounts. Setup Fees—One-Time Only Setup (Existing Partner Bank) $ 50.00 Setup (New Partner Bank) $ 500.00 Maintenance Fee Monthly Maintenance $ 25.00 Payment Fees Local Currency—Payment each $ 7.50 Cross Border Currency—Payment each $ 10.00 Local Currency—Transmission File per file S 7.50 Cross Border Currency—Transmission Fileper file S 10.00 Cross Border Currency—SCORE File .per file S 10.00 Per File (via Transmission) per file S 10.00 Per File (SCORE) per file S 10.00 Returns/Rejects/Repairs MT101 Returned—Union Bank Fee each $ 50.00 MT101 Returned—Foreign Bank Fee each $ 5.00 MT101 Rejected—Union Bank Fee each $ 10.00 MT101 Rejected—Foreign Bank Fee each $ 5.00 MT101 Repaired—Union Bank Fee each $ 35.00 MT101 Repaired—Foreign Bank Fee each $ 5.00 Your foreign bank will charge fees in addition to the fees listed above. INVESTMENT SERVICES Investments available through UnionBanc Investment Services LLC (UBIS), a registered broker-dealer, investment advisor, member FINRA/SIPC, and subsidiary of MUFG Union Bank, N.A.: Are NOT insured by the FDIC or by any other federal government agency • Are NOT Bank deposits • Are NOT guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank Affiliate • MAY lose value LOCKBOX SERVICES Lockbox services provide the ability to speed collections, streamline remittance processing, and improve audit trails. You can view images of checks and correspondence online, providing convenience and potential savings for your business. Wholesale Lockbox Wholesale Lockbox service automates the collection and reporting of low-volume/high-dollar payments by mail. Remittance processing is performed according to customized instructions. Checks are deposited directly into your checking account for same-day ledger credit. The service provides several options, including specialized processing, reporting, data entry, and data transmissions. 16 Forwarding Address Notification Account Maintenance First Account/Deposit Group $ FREE Accounts 2-10/Deposit Group each $ 15.00 Accounts 11-25/Deposit Group each $ 20.00 Accounts 26+/Deposit Group consult account manager Wholesale Lockbox Deposit $ 3.00 Payee Verification Payees1-10 $ FREE Payees 11-20 per item $ .08 Payees 21-30 per item $ .12 Payees 31+ per item $ .15 Postal Box Rental cost New Client Setup $ 125.00 Sorting Options Group Sort (2 Batches) per item $ .10 Fine Sort (3+ Batches) per item $ .22 Invoice Sort per item $ .22 Reporting Options Data Entry per keystroke $ .02 Data Transmission per month $ 210.00 Data Transmission/Media per item $ .02 Deposit Notification Summary per month $ 125.00 With Subtotals per month $ 200.00 With Detail per month $ 175.00 Out -of -State additional per month $ 30.00 Returned Items per call $ 5.00 cost + 20% 17 Web Paper Both Monthly Maintenance per box $ 160.00 160.00 160.00 Image Delivery Monthly Maintenance per box $ 100.00 N/A N/A Item Processed each $ .38 .48 .48 CD Produced each $ 35.00 N/A N/A Web Access per image $ .03 N/A N/A Check Image (Black/White) each $ .05 N/A N/A Document Image (Black/White) each $ .10 N/A N/A Document Image (Color) each $ .12 N/A N/A Exception Decisioning per item $ 1.00 N/A N/A Image Transmission per image $ .03 N/A N/A Rejects/Correspondence... per item $ .25 .50 .50 Photocopies per copy $ N/A .144 N/A Copy Request - Customer Service Associate per item $ 11.50 11.50 11.50 Reassociate Invoice/Copies per item $ N/A .15 N/A Image System Reports per month $ N/A 50.00 N/A Custom System Reports per month $ N/A 200.00 N/A Special Stapling per item $ N/A .06 N/A Additional Mailing per month $ N/A 50.00 N/A Shipping/Handling per month $ N/A 100.00 N/A Forwarding Address Notification Account Maintenance First Account/Deposit Group $ FREE Accounts 2-10/Deposit Group each $ 15.00 Accounts 11-25/Deposit Group each $ 20.00 Accounts 26+/Deposit Group consult account manager Wholesale Lockbox Deposit $ 3.00 Payee Verification Payees1-10 $ FREE Payees 11-20 per item $ .08 Payees 21-30 per item $ .12 Payees 31+ per item $ .15 Postal Box Rental cost New Client Setup $ 125.00 Sorting Options Group Sort (2 Batches) per item $ .10 Fine Sort (3+ Batches) per item $ .22 Invoice Sort per item $ .22 Reporting Options Data Entry per keystroke $ .02 Data Transmission per month $ 210.00 Data Transmission/Media per item $ .02 Deposit Notification Summary per month $ 125.00 With Subtotals per month $ 200.00 With Detail per month $ 175.00 Out -of -State additional per month $ 30.00 Returned Items per call $ 5.00 cost + 20% 17 Additional Service Options Early -Morning Release per month $ 55.00 Multiple Daily Deposits per month $ 55.00 Stamping Invoice per item $ .10 Written Notation per item $ .12 Date Lookup per item S .10 Stop List per month $ 150.00 per item $ .25 Payment Reversal per item $ 10.00 Balance Invoice(s) to Check per item $ .05 Open Envelope by Hand per item $ .20 Foreign Item Processing* per item $ 10.00 *Additional fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Cash Item Telephone Inquiry Unidentifiable Item Fax per envelope $ per call S per item S per page $ 12.50 10.00 5.00 7.00 Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ 150.00 Special Handling (Minimum $100) per hour $ 50.00 Batch Preparation per batch $ 1.25 Incoming Certified/Express Mail per envelope $ 5.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Wholetail Lockbox Wholetail Lockbox service automates the collection and reporting of high-volume/moderate-dollar payments by mail. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) scanlines containing remitter account number and payment due are read from the remittance coupons, compared to the actual payment amounts, and transmitted to you. Select from a wide range of processing options to customize processing instructions, view images of checks and scanned documents, and make online annotations to payments. Checks are deposited directly into your Union Bank account for same-day ledger credit. Specialized options, such as custom reports, data transmissions, check -only payments with copies, and other popular service options are available. New Client Setup per box $ 350.00 Monthly Maintenance per box $ 175.00 Account Maintenance Maximum of One Account Per Deposit Group $ FREE Wholetail Lockbox Deposit $ 3.00 Image Delivery Image Delivery Monthly Maintenance Web Access CD Produced Check Image (Black/White) Document Image (Black/White) Image Transmission per box $ 100.00 per image $ .03 each $ 35.00 each $ .05 each $ .10 each $ .03 Items Processed Items 5,000-25,000 per item $ .265 Items 25,001-40,000 per item $ .242 Items 40,001+ per item $ .215 Check -Only Remittances additional per check $ .21 Low -Volume Surcharge (< 5,000 Items Per Month) per item $ .13 Payee Verification (Simple Names) Up to 5 Payees Only per item $ .50 Rejects/Correspondence per item $ .25 18 Non -Matched Items per item $ .35 OCR Scanline Repair per keystroke $ .02 Item Options Coupon Copy/Image per copy $ .1377 Check Copy/Image per item $ .1377 Postal Box Rental cost Manual Sort (Up to (4) Batches Only) per item $ .20 Reporting Options Data Entry per keystroke $ .02 Summary System Report per month $ FREE Custom System Reports per month $ 200.00 Data Transmission per month $ 200.00 Magnetic Media per month $ 250.00 Data Transmission/Media per item $ .02 Additional Transmissions each $ 25.00 Deposit Notification Summary per month $ 125.00 Out -of -State additional per month $ 30.00 Additional Service Options Multiple Daily Deposits per month $ 55.00 Stop List per month $ 150.00 per item $ .25 10.00 10.00 Payment Reversal per item $ Foreign Item Processing* per item $ *Additional fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Cash Item per envelope $ 12.50 Telephone Inquiry per call $ 10.00 Fax per page $ 7.00 Additional Mailing per month $ 50.00 Shipping/Handling per month $ 100.00 Custom Programming (Minimum $150) per hour $ 150.00 Special Handling (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Copy Request—Customer Service Associate per item $ 11.50 Remittance Designated Deposit Distribution per month $ 600.00 Incoming Certified/Express Mail per envelope $ 5.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 ONLINE BANKING SERVICES Financial Center Add/Change/Delete a User ID Self -Service each $ FREE Bank each $ 5.00 ONLINE SERVICES @ UNIONBANK.COM Access many products and services online through the Financial Center. Conducting your transactions online can help provide convenience, cost savings, and efficiencies for your business. With a single sign -on through one point of entry, you can collect or disburse funds; obtain account information; view paid checks, deposit tickets, and statements; initiate wire transfers; and more. 19 These services are now available online (see pages below): • ACH 10-12 • Commercial Deposit Supplies 2 • Deposited Items Returned 4, 8 • Electronic Receivables 10 • Image on Demand 8, 13, 25 • Information Reporting ...14-15 • Lockbox 16-19 • Online Statements 7 • Positive Pay 22-23 • Remote Deposit 25-26 • Stop Payments 9, 25 • Tax Payment with InstaTax° 26 • Trade Services 30-32 • Wire Transfers 28-29 INTEGRATED PAYABLES SERVICES Outsourcing your payment processing allows you to streamline operations and reduce the cost and security risks associated with account payables -related payments. Monthly Maintenance per payment type $ 150.00 Payroll Site Monthly Maintenance per site $ 300.00 Customer Setup ACH, Check, VCard, and/or Wires* 1 Service $ 2,000.00 2 Services $ 3,500.00 3 Services $ 5,000.00 4 Services $ 6,000.00 5+ Services $ 7,000.00 *Any new setup with significant addenda/rollover pages will have a minimum charge noted above and may require additional hourly charges because of its complexity. Online Payroll Access, Payroll 1099, Payroll W2, and/or Payroll 1042S 1 Service $ 2,000.00 2 Services $ 3,500.00 3 Services $ 5,000.00 4 Services $ 6,200.00 5+ Services $ 7,800.00 Complex Customer Setup ACH, Check, VCard, and/or Wires* 1 Service 2 Services 3 Services 4 Services 5+ Services $ 5,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,000.00 *Any new setup with significant addenda/rollover pages will have a minimum charge noted above and may require additional hourly charges because of its complexity. Document Print, Convert Paper to Electronic Per Account consult account manager Check Printing Domestic Checks Canadian Checks Overflow Pages Items 1-9,999 each $ .45 .60 .12 Items 10,000-49,999each $ .35 .53 .09 Items 50,000-99,999each $ .30 .48 .08 Items 100,000+ each $ .25 .42 .07 20 Check Reprinting each $ 4.00 Manual Check Pull Items 1-100 each $ 2.75 Items 101+ each $ 2.50 Check Extra Logo or Signature each $ 250.00 ACH and Paper to Electronic ACH Converted Check each $ .35 ACH Converted Check Overflow Page each $ .08 ACH Reformatted Transactions and Canada EFT Items 1-9,999 each $ .20 Items 10,000-49,999 each $ .15 Items 50,000-99,999 each $ .14 Items 100,000+ each $ .13 ACH Overflow Addenda Line per page $ .007 Wires each $ 10.00 Virtual Card Payments each $ .25 Set Up or Remove Customer Account per account $ 115.00 Other Print Charges Invoice Printing Items 1-9,999 each $ .40 Items 10,000-49,999 each $ .35 Items 50,000-99,999 each $ .30 Items 100,000+ each $ .25 Oversized Mailing each $ 1.75 Payroll Mailing of 1099, W2, 1042S Forms Items 1-20,000 each $ .50 Items 20,001+ each $ .44 Mail Advices Items 1-1,000 each $ .15 Items 1,001-2,500 each $ .14 Items 2,501-5,000 each $ .13 Items 5,001-10,000 each $ .11 Items 10,001+ each $ .10 Conversion Inserts (Our Custom) with Checkeach $ .13 Conversion Inserts (Customer Doc) with Check each $ .06 Conversion Inserts (Our Custom) Exclusive Mailing, Postage Extra each $ .13 Conversion Inserts (Customer Doc) Exclusive Mailing, Postage Extra each $ .06 Overnight Handling Charges Items 1-50 each $ 2.70 Items 51-500 each $ 5.40 Items 501+ consult account manager Overnight Mail cost Postage cost Training and Implementation Services see page 9 PAYROLL SERVICES Our Payroll services automate the payroll process. Data may be input by telephone, transmitted forms, or personal computer. The services are offered through third -party vendors and are distinguished by the use of official checks for employee disbursements -eliminating customer expenses associated with a separate payroll account. Official Bank Check Monthly Maintenance $ 135.00 21 Checks Issued per item $ .29 If payroll vendor fees are paid by the Bank and applied to Account Analysis, a markup of 35% will be added. For Direct Deposit, see ACH Origination Services. Training and Implementation Services see page 9 POSITIVE PAY SERVICES Positive Pay services provide early fraud detection and prevention by assisting in the review of suspicious or unauthorized checks before they are paid. Three plans are offered to meet your disbursement needs: Positive Pay with Account Reconcilement, Reverse Positive Pay with Account Reconcilement, and Basic Positive Pay. Monthly Maintenance per account $ Pos. Pay FREE Reverse Pos. Pay FREE Payee Name Validation each $ .035 Activity Notification Using Information Reporting Service* *Additional fees may apply. Please see Information Reporting Service. Handling* Exceptions Items Returned each $ 12.50 Payee Exception Processing each $ 1.75 Special Handling per account, per day $ 25.00 *Additional fees may apply. Please see Reconcilement Services. Same -Day Processing 1-5,000 each $ .025 5,001+ each $ .015 Paid - No Issue Exceptions Exceptions 1-24 $ FREE Exceptions 25+ each $ .25 Holiday Scheduling per day $ 25.00 Web Delivery Exceptions Reported each $ View Exceptions Items each S View Duplicate Items each $ View History Image each S Upload each S Manual Issue each S Paper Issue—Non-Standard each $ All standard reconcilement reports will be provided at no additional charge. Pos. Pay 1.75 .50 FREE .50 .18 .25 1.65 Reverse Pos. Pay .20 50 FREE .50 N/A N/A N/A Transmission Exception Decision each $ Decision Input per item $ 22 Pos. Pay N/A N/A Reverse Pos. Pay 10.00 065 Basic Positive Pay Without Account Reconcilement Account Base per account $ 60.00 Per Paid Check Items 1-250 each $ .04 Items251-500 each$ .06 Items 501+ each $ .20 Returned Item per item $ 12.50 Web Delivery Exceptions Reported each $ 1.75 View Exceptions Items each $ .50 View Duplicate Items each $ FREE View History Image each $ .50 View Duplicate History Image each $ FREE PPW Upload Items 1-250 $ FREE Items 251-500 each $ .30 Items 501-750 each $ .45 Items 751+ each $ .60 PPW Manual Issue Items 1-250 $ FREE Items 251-500 each $ .30 Items 501-750 each $ .45 Items 751+ each $ .60 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS VIA ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER SERVICES ACH Debit Setup $ 750.00 Monthly Maintenance $ 400.00 Touchtone Transaction Fee $ 15.00 Fax Mailed Receipts $ 15.00 Output Options—CCD + TXP Format Consolidation of Debits and Credits $ Data Transmission each $ Information Reporting Options Database Enrollment per report $ per report $ Daily Summary Reports Faxed/Mailed Receipt Electronic Credits RECEIVABLES STRAIGHT THROUGH PROCESSING SERVICES FREE 55.00 250.00 50.00 15.00 2.50 Our Receivables Straight Through Processing services automate the end-to-end cash application processing, taking the costly and time-consuming manual processes out of receivables management and greatly improving the efficiency of the collections cycle. The interactive Web portal expedites back- end processing through receivables matching and deductions and exceptions workflows, including reporting and analytics. New Client Setup per setup $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance per account $ 150.00 Invoice Upload (Transmission) per invoice $ .25 Invoice Upload (Portal) per invoice $ .25 23 Payment Upload (ACH, Lockbox, Wires, RDC, CV, etc.) per payment $ .10 Cash Application (Each Time RSTP Applies Cash to an Open A/R) per event $ .25 Input Transmissions (Maximum $220) per file S 20.00 Output File per file S 20.00 RECONCILEMENT SERVICES Our Account Reconcilement services provide better control and increased productivity over manual reconcilement of bank statements. The service has three options: Full Account Reconcilement, Partial Account Reconcilement, and Deposit Reconcilement. Full Account Reconcilement: Reports and reconciles check activity and requires check issue input from the customer. Partial Account Reconcilement: Reports check activity and requires no additional input from the customer. Deposit Reconcilement: Reports deposit activity by deposit location and type. *Additional fees may apply. Please see Basic Account Services. Reconcilement Services—Optional Features Online Reporting PDF Reports $ FREE (Additional fee may apply for Optional Reports) CSV Format Reports Per Month per account $ 20.00 Reports Downloaded 1-10,000 items each $ .015 10,001+ items each $ .008 Copy/Image Services Web Image Inquiry/Copy of Checks Monthly Maintenance per account $ FREE 24 Full Partial Deposit* Monthly Maintenance per box $ 110.00 65.00 60.00 Deposit Reconcilement per deposit $ N/A N/A .15 Issue Input Transmissions each $ 10.00 N/A N/A (Minimum $25) per issue $ .065 N/A N/A MICR Copy (with $100 Maintenance) per issue $ 2.00 N/A N/A Issue Input—Additional Data per issue $ .11 N/A N/A Rejected Issue Re -Entry per issue $ .15 N/A N/A File Maintenance per transaction $ .15 N/A N/A Record Maintenance per issue $ 1.50 N/A N/A per range $ 25.00 N/A N/A Checks Paid Per Month with Truncation Checks 1-5,000 each $ .12 .14 N/A Checks 5,001+ each S .095 .12 N/A *Additional fees may apply. Please see Basic Account Services. Reconcilement Services—Optional Features Online Reporting PDF Reports $ FREE (Additional fee may apply for Optional Reports) CSV Format Reports Per Month per account $ 20.00 Reports Downloaded 1-10,000 items each $ .015 10,001+ items each $ .008 Copy/Image Services Web Image Inquiry/Copy of Checks Monthly Maintenance per account $ FREE 24 Image on Demand Web Image Inquiry for Checks, Deposit Slips, and Deposited Items Monthly Maintenance $ 5.00 Per -Image Fee Images 0-100 $ FREE Images 101+ per image $ .25 Image Transmission Monthly Maintenance $ 20.00 Per Transmission each $ 10.00 Per Item each $ .05 CD each $ 50.00 Check Capture per item $ .05 CD Reproduction (> 45 Days Following Original Production) per CD $ 90.00 Transmission Output each $ 12.50 per item $ .025 Stale Date Feature (Includes Reports) Monthly Maintenance $ 10.00 Stale Date Listing (Minimum $15) per item $ .006 Delivery Paper Report Printing and Shipping per package $ 75.00 Special Handling additional per package $ 5.00 Snapshot Reconcilement (Does Not Include Statement Charge) each $ 25.00 Additional Cutoff—Demand (Does Not Include Statement Charge) each $ 50.00 Returned Items each $ 12.50 Stop Payments each $ 25.00 Stop Payment Renewal each $ 8.00 Optional Reports Outstanding Only per report $ 10.00 Paid No Issue per report $ 10.00 Cancel Check per report $ 10.00 Additional Copies per report $ 10.00 Other (Non -Standard) per report $ 10.00 Clerical Services (Minimum $50) per hour $ 50.00 Custom Reports/Programming per hour $ 150.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 REMOTE DEPOSIT SERVICES Our Remote Deposit services automate check deposits, increase funds availability, and improve efficiencies. No matter where your operations are or how many locations you have, you can electronically scan and deposit all of your checks directly into your account at Union Bank. Web Software Delivery Customers can use our Web -based software and certified scanner to submit deposits. See your deposit manager for current scanner options and pricing. Setup (One Time) $ 200.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 125.00 Additional Accounts (Maximum $400) each $ 75.00 Transaction Fees—ON US each $ .08 Transaction Fees—Transit each $ .10 Deposit Submitted each $ 1.25 25 Image Cash Letter/Direct Send Delivery Customers can submit deposits using an industry standard image deposit file. Setup (One Time) $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 125.00 Additional Accounts each $ 40.00 Transaction Fees each $ .06 File Transmitted (Maximum $220) each $ 20.00 Deposit Submitted each $ 2.50 Vendor Delivery Customers can submit deposits via payment -processing vendor using an industry standard image deposit file. Setup (One Time) $ 250.00 Monthly Maintenance First Account $ 125.00 Additional Accounts each $ 40.00 Transaction Fees each $ .06 Deposit Submitted (Maximum $100) each $ 5.00 SWEEP SERVICE The Sweep service can make your daily treasury management more efficient and less time consuming. End -of -day collected balances are used to determine daily investment/loan transaction amounts so that you do not have to estimate your end -of -day excess cash position. Monthly Maintenance S 50.00 TAX PAYMENT WITH INSTATAX® SERVICE Our InstaTax service provides for the deposit of business taxes electronically online or by touchtone telephone. Experience speed, convenience, and reliability, since the InstaTax service eliminates the need for check writing, mailing, and coupon completion. Setup per access code $ Monthly Maintenanceper access code $ Transaction Processing Payments, Cancellations, and Deletions each $ Payment Reversal each $ Web Touchtone 25.00 15.00 25.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 Receipts/Statements Fax Receipt each $ 1.00 Mail Receipt each $ 5.00 Monthly Statement each $ 15.00 Quarterly Statement each $ 15.00 Training and Implementation Services see page 9 TOTAL BILLER SOLUTION SERVICE Our Total Biller Solution service provides payment acceptance through Internet, Mobile Web, IVR, and CSR payment channels 26 and modules and supports Electronic Bill Payment and Presentment services. Also, it supports electronic transaction processing through Re -Direct, Payer Single Sign -On, and Web Services/API processes. Basic Package A* Setup Per Account Monthly Maintenance Plus Package B* Setup Per Account Monthly Maintenance Suite Package C* Setup Per Division 1st $3,000.00 Setup Per Division 2+ $ 300.00 Monthly Maintenance 1st $ 1,500.00 Monthly Maintenance 2+ $ 300.00 *Package A includes up to 8 hours of implementation services and up to 5 Customer Service Representative (CSR) seats. *Package B includes up to 12 hours of implementation services and up to 10 CSR seats. *Package C includes up to 20 hours of implementation services and up to 15 CSR seats. *For Package B and C clients with volumes over25,000 items per month, standard setup and standard maintenance fees are waived. A minimum of $4,000 per month applies when volumes are not met after three months. Transaction Fees All Volume up to 3,000 Transactions each $ .60 All Volume from 3,001 Transactions to 5,000 Transactions each $ .50 All Volume from 5,001 Transactions to 10,000 Transactions each $ .45 All Volume from 10,001 Transactions to 25,000 Transactions each $ .35 All Volume from 25,001 Transactions to 50,000 Transactions each $ .25 All Volume Greater Than 50,000 Transactions each $ .17 Supporting Services Additional CSR each $ 20.00 Professional Services (Per Hour) each $ 200.00 Other Modules and Services (Not All Are Available with Package A) Setup Mobile Web (Site) each $ 750.00 Monthly Maintenance Mobile Web each $ 600.00 Setup Interactive Voice Response (IVR) each $ 750.00 Monthly Maintenance IVR each $ 500.00 Per Minute IVR cost + 35% Other IVR (Misc) cost + 35% SMS Messages (Mobile Terminated and Mobile Originated) each $ .08 Setup EBPP each $ 750.00 Monthly EBPP Maintenance each $ 500.00 Bill Load each $ .03 eBill Summary Load (If Exceeds 5 Pass -Through Fields) each $ .03 ePresentment up to 5,000 Items each $ .30 ePresentment from 5,001 to 25,000 Items each $ .25 ePresentment Greater Than 25,000 Items each $ .20 ePresentment with Link each $ .10 per setup $ 1,500.00 per account $ 400.00 per setup $2,000.00 per account $ 600.00 27 ePresentment with API each $ .10 Email Bill Delivery each $ .30 Re -Direct Setup each $3,000.00 Monthly Maintenance Re -Direct each $ 500.00 Web Services/API Setup each $2,000.00 Monthly Maintenance Web Services/API each $1,000.00 Token Stored each $ .04 Token Processed each $ .04 Web Services Processing Only (Without Token) each $ .04 Web Services BIN Lookup each $ .04 Payer Single Sign -On each $3,500.00 Payer Single Sign -On Monthly Maintenance each $ 400.00 WIRE TRANSFER SERVICES Our Wire Transfer services provide flexible features for securely initiating wires and receiving notification of wire activity. Incoming Wire Transfers Domestic per wire $ 12.00 International (USD and Foreign) per wire $ 13.00 Domestic with Repair per wire $ 12.00 International (USD and Foreign) with Repair per wire S 13.00 *Additional correspondent fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Transmission EDI Format (Monthly) $ 220.00 28 Web Branch/ Direct Access Cust. Service Monthly Maintenance $ 50.00 N/A N/A Domestic Wires -Outgoing (Each) Wires 1-100 $ 11.00 N/A N/A Wires 101+ $ 8.00 N/A N/A Repetitive $ N/A 22.00 125.00 Non -Repetitive $ N/A 27.00 125.00 EFTPS (Tax Payment) $ 8.50 12.00 125.00 International Wires* (Each) Repetitive (USD) S 20.00 40.00 125.00 Repetitive (Foreign) S 13.00 35.00 125.00 Non -Repetitive (USD) S 17.00 40.00 125.00 Non -Repetitive (Foreign) S 16.00 35.00 125.00 Drawdown/Reverse Wire (Each) Third -Party Drawdown Request (with Outgoing Wire) S N/A 16.00 N/A Domestic Outgoing Drawdown (Incoming Wire) S 8.50 20.00 30.00 Wire Template Maintenance (Add, Modify, or Delete Template) per occurrence $ 5.00 N/A N/A Wire Template Storage per template $ .50 N/A N/A *Additional correspondent fees may apply. Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Transmission EDI Format (Monthly) $ 220.00 28 Outgoing EDI Format Wires 1-100 each $ Wires 101+ each $ Domestic 8.50 7.50 Int'I 8.50 7.50 Outgoing EDI International USD per wire $ 15.00 Outgoing EDI International Foreign Currency per wire $ 15.00 Outgoing EDI Domestic Internal per wire $ 12.00 Outgoing EDI International USD Pay -in -Full per wire $ 35.00 Outgoing EDI International FX Pay -in -Full per wire $ 45.00 Charges to Sender -Pay -in -Full each $ 45.00 Wire Exception Repair each $ 10.00 Wire Inquiry per inquiry$ 6.00 Correspondent Bank Fees $ 1.00 Swift Base Fee per account $ 10.00 Investigations each $ additional per telex/phone $ Domestic 50.00 15.00 Int'I 50.00 15.00 Payments by Cash or Check each $ 10.00 Standing Instructions Domestic each $ 10.00 International (USD and Foreign) each $ 15.00 Wire Notification Fax Mail Phone Incoming/Outgoing per wire $ 8.00 10.00 22.00 Fast Fax Report per month $ 45.00 Security Tokens $ FREE Wire/Swift Advice per item $ 1.00 Internal Bank Transfers Web Touch- tone Branch/ Direct Access Cust. Service Book Transfer per transfer $ Account Transfer per transfer $ 5.00 2.50 N/A 5.00 8.00 8.00 50.00 30.00 Foreign Currency Demand Account (FCDA)* Wire Transfer Payment per wire $ Web Wire Transfer per wire $ Internal Bank Transfer each $ Fax Confirmation each $ *Additional correspondent fees may apply Please see Foreign Exchange Services. Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Other Intermediary Bank fees may apply. See your All About Business Accounts & Services and Transaction Banking Services Disclosure and Agreement as well as your Master Funds Transfer Agreement. Incoming 15.00 N/A N/A 15.00 Outgoing 30.00 17.00 15.00 15.00 29 TRADE SERVICES Our comprehensive trade services provide importers and exporters with the ability to handle most transactions from beginning to end, eliminating the need for documents to be processed through third -party banks. COLLECTIONS—INCOMING AND OUTGOING Documentary Sight $ 110.00 Usance (Time) $ 125.00 Direct Collection—Web-Initiated $ 80.00 Direct Collection $ 110.00 Clean Collections $ 85.00 Other Collection Services Amend Instructions $ 90.00 Partial Payments $ 75.00 Dishonored cost + $ 75.00 Maintenance—Items Unpaid from Due Date per month $ 65.00 EXPORT LETTERS OF CREDIT Advice Original Union Bank Client—Web-Initiated S 100.00 Union Bank Client S 150.00 Add Confirmation by arrangement, minimum S 250.00 Amendment Advice of Amendment—Web-Initiated S 75.00 Advice of Amendment S 90.00 Examination/Payment Export Letter of Credit 1/8% per set of documents, minimum $ 150.00 Reimbursement with Another Bank by arrangement, minimum $ 150.00 Government Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 350.00 Documents Sent Unexamined per set of documents $ 135.00 Payment on Reserve by arrangement, minimum $ 125.00 Acceptance 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 or as arranged Discount Interest by arrangement, minimum $ 100.00 Prepayment Penalty If Paid Before Maturity $ 100.00 Deferred Payment 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 Discrepancy per set of documents $ 90.00 Re -Examination and Pre -Examination Fee per set of documents $ 75.00 Expired, Unutilized, or Cancelled $ 125.00 Transfer Letter of Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Direction to Pay Proceeds minimum $ 250.00 30 IMPORT LETTERS OF CREDIT Issuance Import Letter of Credit -Web -Initiated 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 125.00 Import Letter of Credit 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 150.00 Government Letter of Credit by arrangement Amendment Increase Amount or Extension -Web -Initiated 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 100.00 Increase Amount or Extension 1/8% per quarter, minimum $ 150.00 Narrative or Other -Web -Initiated $ 100.00 Narrative or Other $ 150.00 Examination/Payment Import Letter of Credit 1/4% per set of documents, minimum $ 135.00 Government Letter of Credit by arrangement Acceptance 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 or as arranged Prepayment Penalty If Paid Before Maturity $ 100.00 Discount Interest by arrangement, minimum $ 100.00 Deferred Payment 2% p.a./draft, minimum $ 150.00 Shipside Bond/Air Cargo Release -Web -Initiated 1/4% per quarter, minimum $ 200.00 Shipside Bond/Air Cargo Release 1/4% per quarter, minimum $ 200.00 Discrepancy -Web -Initiated ..per set of documents $ 100.00 Discrepancy per set of documents $ 100.00 Expired, Unutilized, or Cancelled $ 125.00 Transfer Letter of Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Direction to Pay Proceeds minimum $ 250.00 Purchase Order Processing by arrangement STANDBY LETTERS OF CREDIT Issuance Opening Commission 2% p.a., minimum $ 500.00 plus processing fee if paid by invoice $ 150.00 Auto-Renewal/Evergreen per renewal period $ 250.00 Amendment Increase or Extension 2% p.a., minimum $ 500.00 Narrative $ 150.00 Advice Advising Fee $ 150.00 Amendment $ 150.00 Add Confirmation by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Examination/Payment Standby Letter of Credit 1/4% per drawing, minimum $ 200.00 Direct Pay Examination/Payment $ 150.00 Discrepancy per examination $ 100.00 Expired, Unutilized, or Cancelled $ 150.00 Drafted but Not Issued per draft $ 250.00 Transfer Letter of Credit by arrangement, minimum $ 250.00 Direction to Pay Proceeds minimum $ 250.00 31 OTHER TRADE SERVICES Domestic Postage $ 20.00 Registered/Certified Mail $ 25.00 Courier Domestic $ 35.00 International $ 65.00 Handling Charge (Customer's Courier) $ 10.00 Scan Shipping Documents $ 10.00 Fax/Email Messages Domestic $ 20.00 International $ 20.00 Swift or Telex Short (1 Page) $ 50.00 Long (2+ Pages) $ 75.00 Payment Fedwire or CHIPS $ 35.00 Cashier's Check $ 45.00 Foreign Currency Processing $ 65.00 International Services Activity Statement—Mailed account charge/quarter $ 45.00 payment by invoice/year $ 180.00 Special Handling—Excess Detail by arrangement, minimum $ 125.00 Consultation Fee (Applies to Drafting Only)— Minimum $250 per hour $ 250.00 Credit Reports by arrangement, minimum $ 100.00 Tracers $ 40.00 Trade Finance Investigations per hour $ 75.00 plus cable charges Training and Implementation Services see page 9 Note: Fees assessed by other banks will be additional. This fee schedule may not apply to all customers. Transactions that are not standard may be subject to different charges. Union Bank reserves the right to charge for services not covered by this fee schedule and to effect any alterations or amendments as we may consider necessary. All pricing subject to change without notice, except as otherwise provided by applicable law. 32 ©2017 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. All rights reserved. The MUFG logo and name is a service mark of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., and is used by MUFG Union Bank, N.A., with permission; Union Bank is a registered trademark and brand name of MUFG Union Bank, N.A., Member FDIC. unionbank.com/commercial 84060-GOV (01/17) 03 Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Michael Heslin, Director of Information Technology and Support Services DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Plan Consulting PREPARED BY: Damion Patrick, Assistant Director of ITSS RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $93,325, for IT Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Planning Services; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $9,333; 3. Appropriate $102,658 from Fund 320 — Information Technology Available Fund Balance. BACKGROUND: To ensure the long-term viability of the City's technology infrastructure, and to prepare for the replacement of that infrastructure, the City is procuring consulting services to provide an Information Technology (IT) inventory, assessment, and lifecycle plan. The vendor will perform a comprehensive inventory of City IT assets and an assessment of those assets and related IT service delivery. From that assessment, the consultant will build a lifecycle plan the City will use to prepare funding for the eventual replacement of those assets. On September 29, 2017, the City solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) via the City's online bidding system, PlanetBids. On October 16th, 2017, four vendors submitted responsive proposals. The most qualified bidder was SDI Presence, LLC in the amount of $93,325. SDI Presence has performed over 40 projects similar in size and scope, including local cities like the Cities of Ontario, Orange, San Bernardino, and San Clemente, among others. The solicitation did include the Local Vendor Preference Ordinance language as adopted in July 2012, however, there were no local bidders. FISCAL IMPACT: At its meeting on February 28, 2017, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Mid -Year Budget Update, Council appropriated $100,000 of Measure S funds to be transferred to Fund 320 and utilized to perform an IT Assessment. Because the consultant had not been selected prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2016-17, the funds were not encumbered and were instead deposited into Fund 320's Fund Balance. The total amount, $102,658 will be appropriated from Fund 320 — Information Technology, available fund balance. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND SDI PRESENCE LLC TECHNOLOGY INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT, AND LIFECYCLE PLANNING THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 12, 2017, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and SDI Presence LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (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 December 12, 2017, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2019, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City may, upon mutual agreement, extend the contract for one (1) additional one (1) year term. In no event shall the contract be extended beyond June 30, 2020. 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 ninety-three thousand, three hundred twenty-five dollars ($93,325) plus a ten percent (10%) contingency of nine thousand three hundred, thirty-two dollars and fifty cents ($9,332.50) for a total agreement amount of one hundred two thousand, six hundred fifty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($102,657.50) 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 in Consultant's 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: SDI Presence LLC Attn: David Gupta, CEO 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 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 SDI Presence LLC (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor David Gupta, CEO ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Linda Petty, Secretary SDI Presence LLC David Gupta, CEO 33 W. Monroe St., Ste. 400, Chicago, IL 60603 312-580-7510 312-580-7600 dgupta@sdipresence.com PM Initials: Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed Provided in this section is detailed information regarding NexLevel's methodology for completing a successful and useful IT Assessment and Asset Management Roadmap for the City. The detailed phases and tasks of our methodology include structured processes for gathering information and developing actionable, attainable recommendations to help improve IT service delivery for the City. In summary, our data acquisition process includes: IT Inventory — NexLevel will coordinate the completion of a comprehensive IT inventory, including hardware and software assets throughout the organization. We will work closely with ITSS staff to ensure that the inventory is complete. IT Documentation Review — NexLevel performs a comprehensive review of the City's existing IT documentation in order to determine the adequacy of the documentation, and to provide recommendations to improve it. While documentation is not always considered "mission critical", it is an invaluable tool in the event of an emergency and during IT staffing transitions. IT Staff Interviews — we pride ourselves on taking the time to speak with each member of the IT support staff to ensure we gather the necessary information to develop realistic and defensible recommendations for the City. The NexLevel project team includes two former IT Managers, both of whom spent a significant portion of their careers in the public sector. Our team is well versed on both current best practices in the IT sector, and on emerging technologies and service delivery trends. Prioritization Workshop — while the Workshop is one of the final steps in our process, it is often one of the more active information gathering activities. The purpose of the Workshop is to help the City determine the priority for IT asset replacement and to identify the resources (i.e. budget; staffing) necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the IT Asset Management Roadmap. NexLevel's detailed work plan is depicted in Figure 2 on the following page and includes: 1. The "Initiate" phase, which establishes the foundation for effective communication and the successful completion of the project; 2. The "Analyze" phase, which focuses on how the City is currently using business technology to support operations, along with assessing the City's IT service delivery and management; and 3. The "Strategize" phase, which follows a structured methodology to develop a plan that is supported by the information gathered in the "Analyze" phase. Project Approach: Phases and Tasks Deliverables Phase 1 Initiate 1.1—Planning Meeting 1.2 — Work Plan Development and Review 1.3 — Request Existing IT Documentation Phase 2 Analyze 2.1—Complete IT Asset Inventory 2.2 — Review and Update IT Inventory Policies 2.3—Conduct fTSS Department Interviews 2.4—Perform IT Assessment 2.5 — Deliver IT Assessment Report Phase 3 Strategize 3.1— Prepare for Project Prioritization Workshop 3.2 —Conduct Project Prioritization Workshop 3.3 — Prepare IT Asset Management Roadmap ✓ Work Plan ✓ Documents Request ✓ ITAssetlnventory ✓ Updated IT Inventory Policies ✓ Draft and Final ITAssessment Report ✓ IT Project Portfolio ✓ Prioritization Workshop Materials ✓ Draft and Final ITAsset Management Roadmap Figure 1 —Strategic Planning Methodology NexLevel understands that the City desires to have an information technology consultant develop an IT Asset Management Roadmap to guide it in the effective planning, procurement, implementation, and management of technology. We have adapted our proven methodology to address all of the City's desired tasks and services. In addition, we have included additional tasks and activities that we believe help ensure a realistic and attainable Roadmap that will gain City-wide support and the acceptance of the City. The final Roadmap is developed as a result of several critical milestones during the overall process, and NexLevel provides specific deliverables throughout the project. NexLevel recognizes and is prepared to address the following key considerations for the IT Strategic Plan: Completion of an IT asset inventory and establishment of IT inventory policies Completion of a comprehensive Technology Assessment of existing technology and associated IT support environment, including IT organizational structure and personnel Development of a comprehensive IT Asset Management Roadmap that aligns overall City technology resources with Council Priorities, City business needs and goals, and the objectives of the user Departments Recommendations that will help ensure increased efficiency through the effective use of technology in support of the City's business needs A detailed explanation of each phase is provided below. NexLevel is open to working with the City to review the proposed activities, and if the City believes it can perform some activities, then we will work collaboratively to ensure all aspects of the project are covered. We believe that project success is significantly improved when our team works collaboratively with City staff, as this promotes a comprehensive understanding by all parties and helps ensure knowledge transfer to City staff. In the remainder of this section, we discuss each task in detail, including associated activities and deliverables, and provide information regarding City staff participation in each task. Phase 1 - Initiate NexLevel recognizes the importance of applying a formal project management framework to this project to ensure that it meets objectives and is delivered on-time and on -budget. The purpose of the Initiate phase is to prepare for, and initiate, the project under a well-defined work plan. This phase includes confirming our understanding, as well as the understanding of the stakeholders, regarding the scope of work and the process for accomplishing the overall objectives of the project. The following table provides a detailed discussion of what each task will entail. Table 3 - "Initiate" Phase Tasks and Deliverables IProject Approach: Phases and Tasks 1.1—Planning Meeting 1.2 —Work Plan Development and Review 1.3 — Request Existing IT Documentation Deliverables ✓ Work Plan ✓ Documents Request 1.1 - Planning Meeting Task Description: NexLevel will meet with the City's Project Sponsor and other key staff to complete a detailed review of the scope of work, project timeline, deliverables, project status reporting methods, project participants, and other items to ensure a well-planned project. During this meeting, NexLevel will discuss the tools and templates that will be leveraged. 1.2 - Work Plan Development and Review Task Description: NexLevel will publish a Work Plan and present the Work Plan to the City's Project Sponsor to review and obtain feedback. The goal of this meeting will be to obtain consensus on the Work Plan. Deliverables: Work Plan 1.3 - Request Existing IT Documentation Task Description: To support the activities associated with Phase 2 of the project, NexLevel will first review all applicable information available on the City's web site. NexLevel will then request and review the available documentation which may include, but is not limited to, the following: ♦ City Council Priorities ♦ Current Strategic Business Plan, Budget, and CIP ♦ Current IT Major Initiatives ♦ Previous Related Assessments and Technology Plans ♦ Technology Budgets and Capital Plans ♦ Technology Governance Agendas and Minutes ♦ In Process or Planned Technology Project Documentation ♦ IT Inventory (e.g. desktop/laptop/tablet, applications, peripherals, servers, storage, backup devices, applications, etc.) ♦ IT Policies and Procedures ♦ IT Disaster Recovery Plan ♦ Network Architecture Documentation ♦ IT Service Level Agreements ♦ IT Performance Statistics or Activity Reports ♦ Technology Vendor Listing and Agreements Deliverable: Documents Request Phase 2 - Analyze In completing the IT Assessment, it is necessary to first have a comprehensive and realistic understanding of how effectively the current technology environment meets the City's requirements, business objectives, and priorities. This provides the foundation to determine how the City will use technology as a key enabler in supporting its business. This "look ahead" must take into account that technology is evolving rapidly, and so are public expectations regarding information transparency and timely and easy access to City services. During this Phase, NexLevel will develop an assessment of how well the City's IT support organization complies with best practices, and identify gaps between the level of service provided by the IT resources and user service level expectations. The assessment is developed based on information gathered through in-person interviews, site visits, a self-assessment checklist, and a review of the City's technical documentation. In those areas where the assessment indicates that action is needed, NexLevel will provide a finding and one or more recommended actions, an assessment as to the relative priority of each recommendation, and an action plan that considers the relative importance of each recommendation, including a recommended timeframe for implementation. The following table provides a detailed discussion of what each task will entail. Table 4 - "Analyze" Phase Tasks and Deliverables Project Approach: Phases and Tasks Phase 2 Analyze 2.1— Complete IT Asset Inventory 2.2— Review and Update ITlnventory Policies 2.3 — Conduct ITSS Department Interviews 2.4— Perform ITAssessment 2.5 — Deliver IT Assessment Report Deliverables ✓ IT Asset Inventory ✓ Updated ITlnventory Policies ✓ Draft and Final IT Assessment Report Task Description: NexLevel will complete an inventory of all IT related assets, including hardware and software assets throughout the City. The completed inventory will provide information including asset description, location, asset number, age, useful life, and recommended replacement cost and timeline. To help contain the cost to complete this inventory, NexLevel will work closely with ITSS staff to utilize as much information as readily available to prepare for and execute this task. NexLevel will review the City's existing IT inventory policies and procedures and update them to conform to industry best practices. Deliverable: IT Asset Inventory 2.2 — Review and Update IT Inventory Policies Task Description: NexLevel will review the City's existing IT inventory policies that are currently in place and will make recommendations regarding them. This may include development of new policies, and / or the addition of language to existing policies. Deliverables: Updated IT Inventory Policies 2.3 — Conduct ITSS Department Interviews Task Description: NexLevel will meet with the City's Director of ITSS and each of the Department's team to gather information about the Department's operations and functionality. The meetings are intended to provide NexLevel with data regarding how the Department is organized and how it operates, in addition to assessing the sufficiency of staffing levels, staff training, and overall Department organization. 2.4 — Perform IT Assessment Task Description: NexLevel's IT Assessment evaluates whether the City's technology infrastructure and support organization is prepared to support the future needs of the City by reviewing six key operational "assessment dimensions," which are described briefly below. This review takes a comprehensive "best practices" view of essential technology delivery components, as a weakness in any one particular dimension can adversely influence the overall effectiveness of the organization. The six assessment dimensions include: Technology Governance — Evaluation of the current IT organization and assessment of its skills, staffing levels, and capability to support operation and maintenance of current and future systems. This will include a review of IT project management practices, planning activities, IT hardware refreshment, policies and procedures, and the use of oversight committees. Service Delivery — Evaluation of the daily operation of the IT environment including budget, service metrics, maintenance, help desk, configuration management, change management and capacity management. Business Technology Applications — Evaluation of the processes and methods to support business and operational technology applications. Security — Evaluation of the use of software monitoring tools, virus protection procedures, physical hardware security, network vulnerability, passwords, data backup/recovery processes, physical and data security, integrity planning, PCs, network, firewall, incident response, patch management, anti-virus protection, business continuity and emergency operations. Infrastructure — Review of the network, servers, desktops, telecommunications, storage configurations, mobile devices, printers, remote access, data storage, server management, and operational procedures. Administration — Review of technology procurement processes, contract management, vendor management, software license management, budget/charge back management and physical inventory processes. The IT Assessment is developed based on: Information gathered in the course of the business technology interviews with key stakeholders Information gathered as a part of the "Voice of the User" Survey Results of the self-assessment checklist Interviews with IT support staff NexLevel's team will consolidate this information and develop the IT Assessment in terms of the City's compliance with best practices in the six assessment dimensions. The completed IT Assessment Report will include a summary of the user survey, a summary of the best practices assessment, a SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis, specific findings and recommendations that are realistic and actionable, and a proposed action plan for their implementation. The final report will include observations and recommendations regarding the adequacy of the City's IT support structure, along with technology training for IT and the entire organization. 2.5 — Deliver IT Assessment Repor Task Description: NexLevel will prepare a draft of the IT Assessment Report and conduct a meeting to review it with the City. Once the City has had an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft report, NexLevel will incorporate revisions as needed and deliver the final report. Deliverable: Draft and Final IT Assessment Report Phase 3 — Strategize In Phase 3, Strategize, NexLevel works with the City to review and analyze the findings of previous phases in order to identify, analyze, and prioritize projects to be included in the IT Asset Management Roadmap. NexLevel brings to the City proven methods and tools to ensure identified projects are well defined, understood by the stakeholders, and prioritized using agreed upon criteria. During this task, NexLevel will facilitate a Project Prioritization Workshop that uses a multi -step process to arrive at a prioritization of identified projects that will provide the basis for the IT Asset Management Roadmap. The following table provides a detailed discussion of each task. Table 5 - "Strategize" Phase Tasks and Deliverables 1 Project Approach: Phases and Tasks Phase 3 Strategize 3.1— Prepare for Project Prioritization Workshop 3.2 — Conduct Project Prioritization Workshop 3.3 — Prepare IT Asset Management Roadmap 1 Deliverables ✓ IT Project Portfolio ✓ Prioritization Workshop Materials ✓ Draft and Final IT Asset Management Roadmap 3.1— Prepare for Project Prioritization Workshop Task Description: NexLevel will utilize the results of the IT Asset Inventory and the Assessment Report to identify projects that will improve the City's use of technology. The projects will be designed to serve the City's immediate and long-term technology needs. In addition, NexLevel will conduct research of benchmarks and comparisons to similar implementation approaches used by similar sized cities. This activity will provide an opportunity to apply "lessons learned" from other organizations. The output of this effort will be a list of recommended projects, along with a project description, cost estimates, implementation timeframes, and other criteria to prepare for project prioritization. Deliverable: IT Project Portfolio 3.2 — Conduct Prioritization Workshop Task Description: NexLevel will facilitate a Prioritization Workshop, utilizing a multi- step prioritization methodology. The workshop is designed to help drive consensus to obtain an agreed upon prioritization of projects. The end result of the workshop is a prioritized list of projects assigned to a timeframe. In addition, the workshop is designed to identify IT Asset Management Roadmap enabling factors, which are defined as key elements that must be in place or occur to allow the plan to be a success. Examples of enabling factors could include training, staffing, budget, governance, project management, and change management. Deliverables: Prioritization Workshop Materials 3.3 — Prepare IT Asset Management Portfolio Task Description: NexLevel will incorporate work products from previous tasks as the foundation for the development of the City's IT Asset Management Roadmap. NexLevel will use this information, as well as other information provided by staff and independent research, to create a draft of the Roadmap and review it with the City. The Roadmap will include a discussion of emerging technologies in the field, and the potential benefits to the City of considering these emerging technologies. It will also contain actionable recommendations for the delivery of technology services, along with measurable performance metrics to monitor IT service delivery. NexLevel will revise and update Roadmap based on feedback from the City and conduct a final technical and quality review of the final document. Deliverable: Draft and Final IT Asset Management Roadmap Based on NexLevel's experience on similar projects, as well as our knowledge of the City's environment, we estimate that this project will require approximately 12 - 16 weeks to complete. The success of achieving this schedule largely depends on the availability and knowledge of the City assigned staff. Figure 3 below identifies the estimated weeks per phase. sCD utegize Weeks: I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Figure 3 - Project Timeline EXHIBIT B Payment Rates CITY OF TEMECULA PRICING SHEET Name of Company: NexLevel Information Technology, Inc. TECHNOLOGY INVENTORY CONSULTING Description Unit Price Qty Extended Price A. Technology Inventory, Assessment, and Lifecycle Planning $175.00 121 $21,175.00 Al. Inventory of ALL City Technology A2. Update and Develop Inventory & Lifecycle Policies and Procedures B. Technology Assessment $175.00 218 $38,150.00 131. Prepare an assessment of the current state of technology within the City a. Review all City technology related services, support and infrastructure b. Define gaps in technology and technology related support c. Highlight areas of concern regarding and offer mitigation strategies B2. Recommend staffing levels to support ALL City technology C. Lifecycle Planning $175.00 160 $28,000.00 C1. Development of a five (5) year strategic plan C2. Develop a lifecycle plan for ALL City technology C3. Develop a fiscal resource planning for ALL City technology Subtotal $175.00 499 $87,325.00 Sales Tax (8.75%) CA Electronic Waste Recycling Fee Delivery Fees Other Costs (P lease Itemize) Out of Area Travel Not-to-Exceed $6,000.00 Total Price (This is the price to enter into PlanetBids) $93,325.00 Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Michael Heslin, Director of Information Technology and Support Services DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services PREPARED BY: Damion Patrick, Assistant Director of ITSS RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with SoftResources, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $283,890, for Asset Management Consulting and Project Management Services; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Contract Change Orders up to 10% of the contract amount or $28,389; 3. Appropriate $312,279 from Fund 320 — Information Technology, funded through an interfund transfer from the Measure S Fund in the amount of $135,251, an interfund transfer from the General Fund in the amount of $77,028, and a $100,000 appropriation from Fund 320's available Fund Balance. BACKGROUND: Consistent with the Appropriation Guidelines for Measure S, adopted by Council at its February 28, 2017 meeting, to ensure the long-term viability of the City's assets, better manage our technology infrastructure, and to prepare for the replacement of those assets, the City is procuring consulting services to guide the City through an evaluation of our existing asset management practices and through the procurement and implementation an asset management software system. On August 24, 2017, the City solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) via the City's online bidding system, PlanetBids. On September 25, 2017, two vendors submitted responsive proposals. The most qualified bidder was SoftResources, LLC, in the amount of $283,890. SoftResources has performed over 20 projects similar in size and scope, and has previous experience working with the City on our EnerGov Permitting System implementation. The solicitation did include the Local Vendor Preference Ordinance language as adopted in July 2012. There were no local bidders. FISCAL IMPACT: At its meeting on February 28, 2017, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Mid -Year Budget Update, Council appropriated $100,000 of Measure S funds to be transferred to Fund 320 and utilized to hire an Asset Management consultant. Because the consultant had not been selected prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2016-17, the funds were not encumbered and were instead deposited into Fund 320's Fund Balance. Council also appropriated $275,000 to the Public Works Department for an Asset Management Study for Streets and Roads. Public Works utilized $197,972.50 of this allocation. The remaining $77,028 is requested to be transferred to Fund 320 to supplement this project. Additionally, an interfund transfer of $135,251 from the Measure S Fund to Fund 320 is requested to fund the balance of this project. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND SOFTRESOURCES, LLC ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONSULTING THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 12, 2017, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and SoftResources, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, (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 December 12, 2017, 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. The City may, upon mutual agreement, extend the contract for two (2) additional one (1) year terms. In no event shall the contract be extended beyond June 30, 2022. 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 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 the completion of 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 eighty-three thousand, eight hundred ninety dollars ($283,890) plus a 10% contingency of twenty eight thousand three hundred eighty-nine dollars ($28,389) for a total Agreement amount of three hundred twelve thousand, two hundred seventy-nine dollars ($312,279) 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 in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule. 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. Consultant shall retain ownership of any methods, research, information, templates, and techniques that have been previously developed by Consultant that same shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Consultant. Consultant grants to City the irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty -free right and license to use the materials. 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. Notwithstanding the above, for Professional Liability ONLY (errors and omissions for the verbal counsel and written reports for this project), under no circumstances, except for damages resulting from Consultant negligence regardless of the form of action and whether in tort or contract, shall Consultant be liable for any consequential, indirect, special, punitive, economic or loss of revenue, or exemplary or incidental damages, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, including claims for loss of data, loss of goodwill, stoppage, or impairment of other assets, even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Consultant's maximum Professional Liability shall be limited to one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the services in the scope of work for this project. 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. broad as: 00 01 11 85 or 88. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 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: To Consultant: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 SoftResources, LLC Spencer Arnesen, CPA, Principal 11411 NE 124th Street, Suite 270 Kirkland, WA 98034-4341 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 SoftResources, LLC (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: A • racer Arnesen, CPA,Principal By: Vavu WGelR:VA, Elaine Watson, CPA, Principal Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT SoftResources, LLC Spencer Arneson, CPA 11411 NE 124th Street, Suite 270 425.216.4030 425.968.4131 sarnesen@softresources.com PM Initials: 0624 Date: t- EXHIBIT A Scope of Work SoftResources will perform a review of the City of Temecula's (City) Asset Management processes and systems across multiple departments. The Scope of Work for this project is defined in this document. Phase 1. Asset Management Evaluation 1.1 Project Planning SoftResources will work with the City to plan for the project and complete the following tasks: a. Team introductions. Conduct an introductions conference call between City staff and SoftResources staff assigned to the project. b. Scoping and Planning. Coordinate with the City to document and define expectations for the contracted scope of work, project objectives, overall timeline, and roles and responsibilities. c. Project Plan. Develop and maintain a Project Plan that defines detailed phases and tasks, project milestones, deliverables, resource assignments, and dates. d. Status Updates. Provide periodic status updates and related communications via email and teleconference regarding project status as mutually agreed. Deliverables: Project Plan Status Updates 1.2 Pre -Workshop Preparation SoftResources will prepare for on-site Asset Management Review Workshops (Workshops) as follows: a. Schedule On -Site Workshops. Work with the City to identify staff that will participate in Workshops and develop a two-day Workshop Schedule. The City can expect 12-16 Workshops each lasting 1-2 hours. b. Workshop Memo. Develop the Workshop Memo to invite City personnel to the Workshops. The Memo will include questions to consider so City staff can prepare for the sessions. c. City Documentation Review. In preparation for the On -Site Workshops, the City will provide SoftResources with any available documentation for asset management that will orient and prepare them for the Workshops. The types of documents that can be helpful include: process maps, procedure manuals, strategic plans, system diagrams, commissioned reviews or studies, etc. d. Asset Management Questionnaires. Develop a set of Asset Management Questionnaires (Questionnaires) for the Workshop sessions. The City will review and approve the Questionnaires. Deliverables: Workshop Schedule Workshop Memo Asset Management Questionnaires 1.3 On -Site Workshops SoftResources will travel to the City to facilitate two days of Asset Management review Workshops with City departments. Using interactive style interviewing, we will review the current Asset Management environment including: • Short and long term department goals and strategies. • Assets tracked and attributes tracked for each asset. • Data required to support departments with their short and long term department goals and strategies. • Identification of systems used to support Asset Management and a review of the systems strengths and challenges. • Business processes in place to support Asset Management and a review of the strengths and challenges of these business processes. • Education and information about functionality and best practices provided by Asset Management systems in today's market. 1.4 Key Requirements Definition Using the information gathered during the Workshops, SoftResources will define the key technical and functional requirements unique to the City and complete the following tasks: a. Draft Key Requirements. Develop the draft Key Requirements document (150-300 requirements) in table format. Prioritize the Key Requirements according to the following scale (R=Required, I=Important, N=Nice to Have, E=Explore). b. Finalize Key Requirements. City staff will review the document and provide comments. SoftResources will review the changes and have the City sign off on the final document. Deliverables: Key Requirements Document (150-300 Key Requirements) 1.5 Asset Management Assessment SoftResources will use the information collected through interviews, conduct additional research and develop an Asset Management Assessment report. The specific tasks to be performed are as follows: a. Asset Inventory. Document the assets managed by each department or functional area. b. Asset Attributes or Data Sets. Document the data sets being tracked for each asset group. Document the data sets that should be tracked for each asset group. Please note that the final data sets will be determined with the implementation or re -implementation of an Asset Management software system. c. Asset Management Systems. Provide a review of the systems used to manage assets by each asset group including strengths and limitations of each. d. Business Process Observations. Identify opportunities for process improvement related to Asset Management. These recommendations will include opportunities for improvement both within a system and outside of the system. e. Lucity Fit/Gap Assessment. Request that the current software vendor Lucity complete the Requirements document indicating how it can support the City's requirements. SoftResources will provide a recommendation as to if the City should keep Lucity or replace it with a new Asset Management software solution. f. Asset Management Vendor List. Provide a list of Asset Management software that could be considered by the City as a replacement solution. EAM Software Budget Estimate. Based on our assessment of the City's needs and a review with asset management software vendors, SoftResources will provide estimated cost ranges for the following options: • Lucity — Purchase of additional required modules, services for the implementation of those modules across City departments, and recurring maintenance. g. • Alternate Vendor — Purchase of a replacement solution, implementation of that solution across City departments, and recurring maintenance. h. Software Evaluation Recommendation. Make a recommendation of whether the City should keep Lucity or replace it with an alternative Asset Management software solution. 1.6 Asset Management Assessment Report SoftResources will prepare an Asset Management Assessment Report and present the findings to the City as follows: a. Asset Management Assessment Report. Compile the results of the assessment analysis into a written report (20-40 pages) and deliver to the City via email. At this time, we expect the report will include the following (this may be adjusted based upon discussions with the City and the results of the research): ✓ Asset Management Overview ✓ Asset Management Department Review ✓ Asset Management Data Set Review ✓ Process Improvement Opportunities ✓ Key Requirements for Asset Management Software ✓ Lucity Fit/Gap Analysis ✓ Asset Management Solution Options Budget Estimate ✓ Asset Management Vendor List b. Asset Management Assessment Report Executive Summary Presentation. Prepare a PowerPoint summary of the Asset Management Assessment Report findings and answer any questions the City may have regarding the report contents. Deliverables: Asset Management Assessment Report Asset Management Assessment Executive Summary Presentation At the conclusion of Phase 1, the City will pause and determine if they would like to continue with the remaining Phases and Tasks defined in this Scope of Work document. Phase 2. Asset Management Software RFP SoftResources will work with the City to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Asset Management software and assist the City through the RFP solicitation process. This engagement will be for the development of a single RFP. The specific tasks are as follows: 2.1 Prepare RFP SoftResources will prepare the RFP for Asset Management Software as follows: a. Prepare Request for Proposal. Prepare a draft RFP for Asset Management software. The Key Requirements document completed during Phase 1 will become the Requirements section of the RFP. b. City Review of RFP Draft. The City will review the RFP and provide comments. SoftResources will finalize the RFP. Deliverables: RFP for Asset Management Software 2.2 RFP Management SoftResources will work with the City to complete an RFP solicitation process as follows: a. Vendor Notification. The City will issue the RFP according to its purchasing requirements and notify vendors on the Asset Management vendor list provided in Phase 1. We recommend the City allow a minimum of four weeks for vendors to respond to the RFP. b. Solicitation Activities. Collect pre -bidder questions regarding the RFP from prospective vendors. Create an RFP addendum that documents the questions submitted and provide answers to those questions. The RFP addendum will be posted to the City's website according to the schedule defined in the RFP. Phase 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection SoftResources will assist the City through vendor selection process including vendor analysis, demo facilitation, due diligence tasks, and final decision activities. 3.1 Vendor Analysis The City will receive the vendors' proposals and provide one hard copy and one soft copy to SoftResources. SoftResources will work together with the City's Project Team to conduct vendor analysis as follows: a. Initial Review of Vendor Proposals. All proposals will undergo an initial review. Vendors may be eliminated or elevated based on the following filters: ✓ RFP Compliance ✓ Vendor Experience with Similar Entities ✓ Pricing for Software, Implementation and Training ✓ Implementation Team Resources ✓ City Specific Requirements b. Detailed Vendor Analysis. Elevated vendor proposals will continue to be analyzed using the Key Requirements. Conduct vendor review calls to validate and clarify the information provided in their proposals. These discussions with the vendors are the best way to mitigate the risk of inaccurate assumptions about the requirements and the vendors' answers, and to gain added insight into the vendor's software, culture, viability and fit for the City. The City may wish to participate through this process if time permits. 3.2 Short List Decision SoftResources will assist the City to make a Short List determination of approximately three vendor solutions and create the following documents: a. Short List Vendor Comparison Chart. Create a Short List Comparison Chart that presents how each vendor will support the City's requirements for Asset Management software. b. Pricing Analysis. Review of the estimated cost for 1 year and 10 years in an equalized format for each vendor on the Short List. c. Short List Presentation. Prepare an executive -level PowerPoint Presentation that provides an overview of the project to date, summary of vendor proposals received, vendors eliminated, and vendors elevated to the Short List. SoftResources will present the Short List to the City and address any questions they have regarding the report. The City will have final approval over the vendor Short List. Deliverables: Short List Vendor Comparison Chart Pricing Analysis Short List Presentation 3.3 Demo Script and Request for Demo Letter SoftResources will create a custom Demo Script and Request for Demo Letter as follows: a. Demo Script. SoftResources will develop a custom Demo Script using the City's Key Requirements and analysis gathered to date. The Demo Script defines the timeline and topics to be covered during the onsite vendor demonstrations. b. Request for Demo Letter. SoftResources will prepare the Request for Demo Letter that will be used to notify vendors they have been elevated to the Short List for the City. The letter will include logistics information about the demo process and invite the vendors to a pre - demo conference call. The City will issue the Request for Demo Letter with the Demo Script to the vendors. Deliverables: Demo Script Request for Demo Letter 3.4 Pre -Demo Preparation SoftResources will work with the City to set-up and prepare for software demos as follows: a. Schedule On -Site Vendor Demos. Advise the City to schedule the On -Site Vendor Demos. We anticipate three 2 -day vendor demos plus a Demo Wrap Up Meeting the day following the final demo. We recommend that the City schedule the demonstrations as close together as possible for best comparative analysis. b. Pre -Demo Vendor Meetings. Work with the City to schedule and facilitate Pre -Demo Meetings via teleconference with each Short Listed vendor. SoftResources recommends the vendors be allowed four weeks to prepare for the Demos. 3.5 Demo Facilitation SoftResources will facilitate the Demo process as follows: a. Facilitate On -Site Demos. Attend and facilitate the software demos on-site at City offices. At this time we estimate three, 2 -day demos, but this may change depending on the needs of the City. Demo feedback from City attendees will be collected at the conclusion of each Demo through the Demo Report document. b. Facilitate Demo Wrap Up Meeting. The day following the final software demo (or an alternate agreed to date), facilitate an on-site Demo Wrap Up Meeting with the City. The purpose of this meeting is to identify the front runner vendor(s) under consideration. We will present Demo Report results and facilitate City discussions. Deliverables: Demo Report 3.6 Decision Support SoftResources will continue to support the City through Decision Analysis as follows: a. Decision Support. Provide tools and templates, assist through the review of data collected throughout the vendor evaluation process, and advise the City through the final decision process. b. Vendor Management. Continue to manage vendor communications and questions, do follow up work, and act as a liaison with the vendors. c. Due Diligence Demos. Assist the City through the process of Due Diligence Demos as needed. These demos are structured to review select functional and technical topics requiring more presentation and are typically managed through a web -demo process. (SoftResources' direct participation during due diligence demos will be billed on a Time and Materials basis.) d. Vendor Reference Checks. Advise the City through the vendor reference review process. Provide our Reference Check template that includes directions and sample questions that may be included in the reference discussions. (SoftResources' direct participation with reference checks will be billed on a Time and Materials basis.) e. Final Decision Meeting. Work with the City to prepare for and participate in the Final Decision Meeting via teleconference. Discuss information about the finalist vendor(s) and facilitate discussion to support the City to make the final decision. The City will make the final decision. Deliverables: Final Decision Tools and Templates Final Decision Meeting LContt • a to •s_ 1- M .. Ni SoftResources will act in an advisory role to assist the City through the Contract Review process. We review the business issues in the contract including some terms and conditions and discounts to protect the City's interests. Note that SoftResources is not a law firm and the contract will require a legal review. Depending on the software selected, the City may have four documents: 1) Software License, 2) Software Maintenance, 3) Implementation Services and 4) Statement of Work. If a hosted or Cloud vendor is selected, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) will be negotiated. We strongly recommend that the Statement of Work be reviewed as part of the contract process. SoftResources will perform the following tasks: 4.1 Software Contract Review Review the software license, maintenance, and implementation services contracts or SLA from a business perspective. Prepare a written Software Contract Review document of key items to review. Review the document with the City in a teleconference. 4.2 Vendor Statement of Work Review (SOW) Review the Vendor SOW proposed for the implementation. Prepare a written SOW Review document of key items to review. Review the document with the City in a teleconference. Deliverables: Software Contract Review Document SOW Review Document • Ia - y •u Imps -u -i - 'oi -•• « • • 11 SoftResources provides Implementation Project Management or Oversight services as requested by our clients. We work on behalf of our client during the planning and execution of implementation to identify and manage issues that can impact the overall success of the project. The role of the SoftResources Project Manager typically requires approximately 15-50% of a full time equivalent (FTE) staff person over the life of the implementation project. This estimate assumes that some weeks the Project Manager will consume 100% of an FTE while other weeks little or no assistance will be required. In addition, we anticipate some of the services will require the Project Manager to be on-site at City offices while other services may be provided remote via teleconference or email communications. For this project we are assuming 25% of FTE based on the services requested. 5.1 Implementation Services Implementation success is dependent on many factors including the City's staff, the software solution selected, and the Vendor Implementation Team (Vendor), etc. SoftResources will work to mitigate implementation risk by advising the City through the process, monitoring project progress, augmenting City resources, and working with the Vendor to facilitate project progression as follows: a. Project Management Services. Project Management Services include: • Maintain the overall Project Plan for the life of the project in conjunction with the Vendor Project Manager. • Participate in weekly status meetings with the Vendor. • Communicate with City internal staff so they understand assignments, as well as associated due dates and deliverables. • Manage project risks and issues and ensure they are documented and resolved. b. Project Plan. Collaborate with the Vendor to create a Project Plan that defines tasks, assigns responsibility, milestones, timeline, and deliverables. Work with the City and Vendor to make modifications to the Project Plan as necessary and monitor completion of project tasks within scope and budget. Collaborate with the Vendor to conduct a Kickoff Meeting with the City to establish expectations for the implementation project and discuss approach to managing milestones, communicate status, and manage vendor payments. c. Quality Control Plan. Work with the City and Vendor to develop a Quality Control Plan that will be used to manage how project results will be measured to verify that the software and services meet the project scope, quality, time, and budget. d. Change Order Management. Review and manage change orders as they occur to ensure accuracy. e. Project Closeout. Assist with Project Close Out including a review of the Project Plan to ensure all tasks are complete, review of Cutover Strategy to be used by the City to ensure all steps have been properly executed, and participate in the Vendor handoff to City staff. Deliverables: Project Plan Quality Control Plan Project Close Out Report Estimated Timeline The following is the estimated timeline for this project. This timeline may be revised based on further discussion with the City and as the project continues. Please note that some tasks within different phases may be completed concurrently. Phase 1. Asset Management Evaluation Deliverables • Project Plan • Status Updates • Workshop Schedule • Workshop Memo • Asset Management Questionnaires • Key Requirements Document • Asset Management Assessment Report • Asset Management Assessment Executive Presentation Timeline Estimate _ 8-12 weeks Plus Project Management through completion of project 2. Asset Management Software RFP • RFP for Asset Management Software 2-3 weeks + 4 weeks for RFP Solicitation 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection • Short List Vendor Comparison Chart • Pricing Analysis • Short List Presentation • Demo Script • Request for Demo Letter • Demo Report • Final Decision Tools and Templates • Final Decision Meeting 16-20 weeks 4. Contract Negotiations • Software Contract Review Document • SOW Review Document 4-6 weeks Pb4.5.0 Deliverables Timeline Estimate 5. System Implementation and "Go Live" • Project Plan • Quality Control Plan • Project Closeout Report To be Determined Assumed 18 months *Weekly estimates may overlap as some tasks within different phases can be performed concurrently. This timeline is dependent on City availability, timely approval of documents and vendor availability, and may be modified as we move through the project. EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule The fees defined below for Phase 1 through Phase 4 are fixed fees, and will be invoiced upon completion of each task within that phase. Fees associated with Phase 5 will be invoiced monthly for actual services performed that month. Travel expenses will be invoiced monthly as incurred. Phase/l---• Deliverables $ 1. Asset Management Evaluation 1.1 Project Planning • Project Plan • Status Updates $ 5,180 1.2 Pre-Workshop Preparation • Workshop Schedule • Workshop Memo • Asset Management Questionnaires 5,180 1.3 On-Site Workshops 5,920 1.4 Key Requirements Definition • Key Requirements Document 7,400 1.5 Asset Management Assessment 16,650 1.6 Asset Management Assessment Report • Asset Management Assessment Report • Asset Management Assessment Executive Present 9990 2. Asset Management RFP 2.1 Prepare RFP • RFP for Asset Management Software 5,550 2.2 RFP Management 3,330 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection 3.1 Vendor Analysis13,320 3.2 Short List Decision • Short List Vendor Comparison Chart • Pricing Analysis • Short List Presentation 7,400 3.3 Demo Script and Request Demo Letter • Demo Script • Request for Demo Letter 6,660 3.4 Pre-Demo Preparation 2,590 3.5 Demo Facilitation • Demo Report 12,580 3.6 Decision Support • Final Decision Tools and Templates • Final Decision Meeting 7,400 4. Contract Negotiations 4.1 Software Contract Review • Software Contract Review Document 5,920 4.2 Vendor Statement of Work Review • SOW Review Document 5,920 5. System Implementation and "Go Live" 5.1 Implementation Services • Project Plan • Quality Control Plan • Project Closeout Report 133,200 T&M Sub-Total Fees $ 254,190 Estimated Expenses 29,700 Total Fees and Expenses $283.890 Detailed Hour and Fee Estimate for Temecula Asset Management Project Work Performed by Phase Director Manager Total Hours Fixed Fees $185 $185 1. Asset Management Evaluation 1.1 Project Planning 18 10 28 5,180 1.2 Pre -Workshop Preparation 12 16 28 5,180 1.3 On -Site Workshops (2 days) 16 16 32 5,920 1.4 Key Requirements Definition 16 24 40 7,400 1.5 Asset Management Assessment 45 45 90 16,650 1.6 Asset Management Assessment Report 24 30 54 9,990 Total Hours 131 141 272 50,320 2. Preparation of RFP Document 2.1 Prepare RFP 14 16 30 5,550 2.2 RFP Management 12 6 18 3,330 Total Hours 26 22 48 8,880 3. Vendor Evaluation and Selection 3.1 Vendor Analysis 32 40 72 13,320 3.2 Short List Decision 16 24 40 7,400 3.3 Demo Script and Request for Demo Letter 12 24 36 6,660 '3.4 Pre -Demo Preparation 10 4 14 2,590 3.5 Demo Facilitation (7 days) 64 4 68 12,580 3.6 Decision Support 24 16 40 7,400 Total Hours 158 112 270 49,950 4. Contract Negotiations 4.1 Contract Review 32 0 32 5,920 4.2 SOW Review 32 0 32 5,920 Total Hours 64 0 64 11,840 Total Fixed Fees 379 275 654 120,990 Estimated Expenses 6,300 Total Fixed Fees and Expenses 127,290 5. System Implementation and "Go Live" 5.1 Implementation Services 720 0 720 133,200 Total Not -to -Exceed 720 0 720 133,200 Estimated Expenses 23,400 Total Implementation Not -to -Exceed 156,600 Estimated Expenses for On-site Travel Trip 1: On-site Workshops (2 days on-site) Roundtrip Airfare $400 x 2 persons 800 Hotel $300/night x 2 nights x 2 persons 1,200 S2,i,o0; Trip 2: Needs Assessment Presentation (1 day on-site) Roundtrip Airfare $400 x 2 persons 800 Hotel $300/nightx 1night x 2 persons 600 $1,400 Trips 3 and 4: Software Demos (7 days on-site) Roundtrip Airfare $400 x 1 person x 2 trips 800 Hotel $300/nightx 7nights 2,100 52,900 Total Estimated Expenses $6,300 Implementation Project Management (4 days on-site for each monthly trip) Roundtrip Airfare $400x 1 person x 1 trip 400 Hotel $300/night x 3 nights 900 $1,300 Total Implementation Trips 18 Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Isaac Garibay, Human Resources Manager DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adjustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 2. Appropriate $44,129 from the General Fund available fund balance, and $14,350 from Fund 320 - Information Technology available fund balance. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the State of California issued a Minimum Wage Order (MW -2017), which mandates that all employers, including the City of Temecula, pay employees hourly wages not less than $11.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2018. As a result, those pay ranges that fall below $11.00 per hour were studied along with related job classifications to bring all pay ranges into compliance while maintaining internal equity differentials within each classification family. Salary range adjustments were made to the following classifications: • Intern • Office Aide III • Office Aide II • Office Aide I • Senior Recreation Leader • Recreation Leader • Recreation Assistant • Day Camp Director • Assistant Day Camp Director • Video Production Specialist • Lifeguard • Senior Lifeguard • Lead Lifeguard Additionally, several Project Classifications will be eliminated because they are obsolete, or redundant of updated classifications in the Classification Plan adopted by the City Council on March 25, 2014. As a result, several employees whose classifications will be eliminated will need to be reclassified into a comparable classification from the new Classification Plan, which also will result in pay adjustments. No salary or benefit adjustments were made to Executive, Mid Management, or staff represented by Teamsters Local 911. FISCAL IMPACT: It is difficult to predict the exact fiscal impact of project employment wages due to the nature of the work. Project employment positions have high turnover because they are temporary in nature. Employees often leave project positions for full-time, benefitted opportunities, and sometimes the positions are seasonal by design (e.g. Lifeguards). Although it is unlikely, assuming all project positions are filled for the rest of Fiscal Year 2017-2018, the maximum Citywide fiscal impact would be $160,557, of which $102,078 is from the Temecula Community Services District. ATTACHMENTS: Salary Schedule CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/Title Level Salary Steps 6_ MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 'M 5.0 5.5 6.0 I 1 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE Executive 4 29.1324 29.8635 30.6105 31,3733 32.1595 32.9616 33.7872 34.6286 35.4934 36.3820 37.2941 38.0961 39.0475 40.0226 41.0212 Assistant (Y -Rate) 5,049.6100 5,176.3400 5,305.8200 5,438.0300 5,574.3200 5,713.3400 5,856.4500 6,002,2900 6,152,1900 6,306.2100 6,464,3100 6,603.3300 6,768.2300 6,937.2500 7,110.3400 60,595.32 62,116.08 63,669.84 65,256.36 66,891.84 68,560.08 70,277.40 72,027.48 73,826.28 75,674.52 77,571.72 79,239.96 81,218.76 83,247.00 85,324.08 Executive 4 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Assistant 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Senior 4 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26,8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 Ad m inistrative Ass ista nt 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Administrative 3 22.0478 22.5981 23.1642 23.7462 24,3437 24,9491 25.5704 26.2073 26.8600 27,5282 28,2202 Assistant (Y -Rate) 3,821.6200 3,917.0000 4,015.1300 4,116.0100 4,219.5800 4,324,5100 4,432,2000 4,542,6000 4,655.7300 4,771.5500 4,891,5000 45,859,44 47,004,00 48,181.56 49,392,12 50,634,96 51,894.12 53,186.40 54,511,20 55,868.76 57,258.60 58,698.00 Administrative 3 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23,1145 23.6924 24,2847 24,8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 Assistant 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 Senior 2 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 Off ice 5pec ialist 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720,4481 3,813.4593 3,908,7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Off ice 5pec ialist 11 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541,1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908,7958 4,006.5157 4,106,6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494,11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761,51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Off ice 5pec ialist l 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19,4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454,8059 3,541,1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497,57 39,460.01 40,446,51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761,51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512.15 51,774,95 Off ice Aide 111 1 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18,5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 Off ice Aide 11 1 14.4588 14.8202 15,1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17,1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Office Aide 1 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14,8202 15.1907 15.5705 15,9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 26,581,25 27,245,78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 Page 1 at 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 • 5.0 5.5 6.0 ANIL MCP Only 7.0 7.5 8.0 ANALYST Principal7 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 Management Analyst 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Senior 6 38.9454 39.9203 40.9190 41,9228 42.9868 44.0642 45.1649 46.2972 47.4530 48,6403 49,8591 50.9285 52.2022 53.5075 54,8442 Ma nageme nt Analyst 6,750.5300 6,919.5200 7,092.6200 7,266.6200 7,451,0400 7,637.7900 7,828.5900 8,024.8400 8,225.1900 8,430.9900 8,642,2400 8,827.6000 9,048.3800 9,274.6400 9,506.3300 (Y -Rate) 81,006.36 83,034.24 85,111,44 87,199.44 89,412.48 91,653.48 93,943.08 96,298.08 98,702,28 101,171,88 103,706.88 105,931.20 108,580.56 111,295.68 114,075.96 Senior 6 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 Management Analyst 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803,8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368,43 Management Analyst5 35.2576 36.1382 37.0424 37.9703 38.9218 39.8967 40.8954 41,9176 42.9633 44,0405 45,1413 46.1085 47.2644 48,4437 49.6546 (Y -Rate) 6,111.3200 6,263.9600 6,420.6900 6,581.5100 6,746.4400 6,915.4200 7,088.5300 7,265.7100 7,446.9700 7,633.6900 7,824,5000 7,992,1400 8,192.5000 8,396.9100 8,606.8000 73,335.84 75,167,52 77,048.28 78,978.12 80,957,28 82,985.04 85,062.36 87,188.52 89,363.64 91,604.28 93,894,00 95,905.68 98,310.00 100,762,92 103,281,60 Management Analyst5 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 Management Assistanta 28.0866 28,7863 29.5097 30.2488 31.0038 31.7822 32.5764 33.3940 34.2275 35.0846 35.9652 (Y -Rate) 4,868.3400 4,989.6300 5,115.0200 5,243.1300 5,373.9900 5,508.9100 5,646.5700 5,788.2900 5,932,7700 6,081.3300 6,233.9700 58,420.08 59,875.56 61,380.24 62,917.56 64,487.88 66,106.92 67,758.84 69,459.48 71,193.24 72,975.96 74,807.64 Management Assistanta 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 Management Aide III3 21.4641 22.0007 22,5507 23,1145 23.6924 24,2847 24,8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 Ma nageme nt Aide 11 2 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 22,0007 22,5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541,1761 3,629.7055 3,720,4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 40,446.51 41,457,67 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149,86 Management Aide I 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 22,0007 22,5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720,4481 3,813.4593 3,908,7958 4,006,5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645,38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 Intern 1 11.0197 11.2952 11,5775 11.8670 12,1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161,0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445,0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932.92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director of 8 63.6155 65.21 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Development 11,026.69 11,302.36 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381, 21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING & SAFETY Building Official7 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60,5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66,8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584,9206 11,874,5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494, 52 146,056.89 149,708, 31 153,451.02 157,287, 29 Field Supervisor-Building4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Plan Checker 4 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Senior Building Inspector3 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387.56 Building Inspector 112 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 Building Inspector l 1 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565,1425 6,729.2711 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Page 2 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CODE ENFORCEMENT Field Supervisor -4 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 Code Enforcement 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069,9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Senior Code 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Enforcement Officer 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 Code Enforcement Officer 11 2 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35,1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Code Enforcement Officer l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128,6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Planning Manager7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56,2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66,8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050,1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745,9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628,34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Principal Planner6 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 522122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099,41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 Senior Planner 5 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 Associate Planner 11 4 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Associate Planner 1 3 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Assistant Planner 2 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Planning Technician 1 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -SERVICES CommDev Processinga 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 Supervisor 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Senior CommDev 3 29.3131 30.0445 30.7993 31.5699 32.3562 33.1660 33.9916 34.8408 35.7136 36.6100 37.5220 Services Technician 5,080.9400 5,207.7100 5,338.5400 5,472.1100 5,608.4000 5,748.7800 5,891.8800 6,039.0800 6,190.3600 6,345.7300 6,503.8200 (Y -Rate) 60,971,28 62,492.52 64,062.48 65,665.32 67,300.80 68,985.36 70,702.56 72,468.96 74,284,32 76,148.76 78,045.84 Senior CommDev 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 Services Technician 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Com mDev Services2 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 Technician 11 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Com mDev Services 1 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 Technician 1 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128,6788 5,256.8958 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Page 3 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 • 5.0 ANIL MCP Only 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 CITY CLERK City Clerk8 52.2572 53.5625 54.8993 56.2753 57.6827 59.1216 60.5999 62.1174 63.6665 65.2548 66.8825 68.5529 70.2686 72.0281 73,5738 (Y -Rate) 9,057.9200 9,284.1700 9,515.8700 9,754.3800 9,998.3400 10,247,7400 10,503.9800 10,767.0100 11,035.5300 11,310.8400 11,592.9600 11,882.5100 12,179.8900 12,484.8700 12,752,7900 108,695.04 111,410.04 114,190.44 117,052.56 119,980.08 122,972.88 126,047.76 129,204.12 132,426.36 135,730.08 139,115.52 142,590.12 146,158.68 149,818.44 153,033.48 City Clerk8 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62,0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68,5070 70,2197 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171,4072 103,368,43 105,952, 64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 Deputy City Clerk7 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248,7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770,03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646,70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 Records Manager6 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Records Supervisor4 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Senior 3 23,1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Records Coordinator 4,006,5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314,5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Records Coordinator 2 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Records Technician 1 18.9712 19.4454 19,9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22,5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494,11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 CITY MANAGER City Manager8 111.42 (per Employment Contract) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19,312.50 231,750.00 Assistant City Manager 8 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92,1343 94.4376 96.7986 99.2185 101.6990 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115,1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200, 4198 15,580,4302 15,969,9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 17,197.8797 17,627.8267 149,708.31 153,451,02 157,287.29 161,219,47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615,74 177,956,13 182,405.04 186,965,16 191,639,29 196,430.27 201,341,03 206,374.56 211,533.92 Deputy City Manager7 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70,2197 71,9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79,4471 81,4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92,1343 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 15,969.9410 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639,29 Assistant to the 6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70,2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 City Manager 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584,9206 11,874,5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107,2743 111,316.49 114,099,41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628,34 139,019,05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Economic Development5 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54,8555 56,2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 Manager 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050,1215 9,276.3745 9,508,2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646,70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601,46 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 Video Production 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Specialist 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0261 5,661.1018 5,802.6293 5,947.6951 6,096.3874 6,248.7971 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2710 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 Page 4 of 12 Class Family/Title Level 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 MCP Only 7.0 7.5 8.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES Director of 8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79,4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Services 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171,4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107,2743 13,434,9562 13,770,8301 14,115,1008 14,467,9783 14,829,6778 15,200.4198 15,580,4302 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Asst Director of 7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56,2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 Community Services 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944, 40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628,34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Community Services6 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Superintendent 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099,41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 Community Services5 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Manager 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 Community Services4 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 Supervisor 11 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Community Servicesa 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Supervisor l 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Community Services3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Community Services3 24,2847 24,8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 Coordinator l 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396,06 55,755,96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Community Servicesz 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 Specialist 11 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512,15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 Community Servicesz 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22,5507 23.1145 23,6924 24,2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist l 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646,3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Community Services 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446,51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 45,761,51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280,14 50,512,15 Senior Recreation Leader 1 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026,24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457,67 42,494.11 Recreation Leader 1 13.0989 13.4264 13,7621 14.1061 14,4588 14,8202 15,1907 15.5705 15,9598 16.3588 16.7677 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 2,506,1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 Recreation Assistant 1 11.0197 11.2952 11.5775 11.8670 12,1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13,7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161.0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932,92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY SERVICES - AQUATICS Aquatics Supervisor IIa 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860,20 78,781,71 80,751,25 Aquatics Supervisor la 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Aquatics Coordinator3 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29,5885 303282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33,4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523,0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Lead Lifeguard2 15.9598 163588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18,9712 19,4454 19,9316 20,4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748,82 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457,67 42,494.11 Senior Lifeguard 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026,24 34,876.90 35,748,82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 Lifeguard 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13,7621 14.1061 14,4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385,4245 2,445,0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698,8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074,24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026,24 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Pag 5of12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/Title Level Salary Steps _ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 . 5.0 5.5 6.0 W COMMUNITY SERVICES - DAY CAMP Day Camp Director 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Assistant Day Camp 1 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17,1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 Director 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835,5201 2,906,4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 COMMUNITY SERVICES - PARK RANGERS Supervising Park Ranger 4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860,20 78,781,71 80,751.25 Park Ranger 111 3 27,4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Park Ranger 11 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 Park Ra nger l 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 3,908,7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 COMMUNITY SERVICES -THEATER Theater Tech nical 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Theater Tech nical3 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 Coordinator 1 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Theater Tech nical2 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 Specialist 11 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314,5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646,3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078,19 49,280,14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149,86 58,578.60 Theater Tech nical2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist 1 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Theater Tech nical 1 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20,9406 21,4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 FINANCE Director of Finance8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81,4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475, 6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467, 9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580,4302 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056, 89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Assistant Director7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50,9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 of Finance 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508,2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495,3663 10,757,7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 98,387, 56 100,847, 25 103,368.43 105,952, 64 108,601, 46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872, 58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 Fiscal Services Manager 6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601,46 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 FINANCE - ACCOUNTING Senior Accountant4 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 Accountant 113 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387,56 100,847.25 Accountant 13 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985,57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 Page 6 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 AMFIL MCP Only 7.0 7.5 8.0 FINANCE- ACCOUNTING SUPPORT Accounting Supporta 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 Supervisor 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Senior Accounting3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 Technician 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 Accounting Technician 112 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578,60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 Accounting Technician 12 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Accou nting Ass ista nt 1 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069,32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Cashier 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043,07 61,544.15 FINANCE - BUSINESS LICENSE Business License 4 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38,8227 39,7933 Supervisor 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897,5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 Senior Business License 3 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Technician 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Business License 2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Technician 4,422,4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Business License 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Assistant 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043,07 61,544.15 FINANCE - PAYROLL Payroll Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646,70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 Payroll Administratora 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43,9243 45,0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Payroll Supervisora 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43,9243 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613,5526 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 Senior Payroll3 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 Coordinator 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 Payroll Coordinator2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Payroll Technician 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24,8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128,6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933,22 Page 7 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 MCP Only 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 FINANCE - PURCHASING Purchasing Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38,8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839,29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Purchasing Supervisora 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 Senior Buyer3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Buyer II2 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31,0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372.34 Buyer I2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29,5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Purchasing Assist ant 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FIRE Field Supervisor-Fire4 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49,6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56,2269 57.6325 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 119,875,69 Senior Fire Inspector4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 114,099.41 Fire Inspector II2 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 Fire Inspector I 1 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Page 8 0312 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 ANIL MCP Only 5.5 6.0 6.5= 7.0 7.5 8.0 HUMAN RESOURCES Director of HR/Risk 8 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75,6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Management 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107,2743 13,434,9562 13,770,8301 14,115.1008 14,467,9783 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Asst Director of HR/Risk7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59,0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 Management 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302,3616 11,584,9206 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952, 64 108,601, 46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 HR Manager6 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944,40 Risk Manager6 43.5058 44.5910 45.7074 46.8476 48.0192 49.2222 50.4568 51,7148 53.0042 54,3332 55.6934 56.8887 58.3118 59.7664 61,2603 (5 -Rate) 7,541.0000 7,729.1000 7,922,6200 8,120,2500 8,323.3200 8,531.8500 8,745.8400 8,963.9000 9,187.4000 9,417,7500 9,653.5300 9,860.7000 10,107.3700 10,359.5100 10,618,4600 90,492,00 92,749,20 95,071.44 97,443.00 99,879.84 102,382.20 104,950.08 107,566.80 110,248.80 113,013.00 115,842.36 118,328,40 121,288.44 124,314.12 127,421,52 Risk Manager6 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944,40 HR Supervisora 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior HRTechnician 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069,9404 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 HR Technician 11 2 26,1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043,07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 HR Technician 1 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396,06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 HR Assistant 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003,5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276,31 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Director oflT/Support8 59.0734 60.5502 62,0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70,2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Services 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 132,320,33 135,628, 34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056, 89 149,708.31 153,451,02 157,287, 29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615, 74 Asst Director of IT/Support7 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71,9751 Services 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584,9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475,6924 105,952, 64 108,601, 46 111,316,49 114,099, 41 116,951, 89 119,875,69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320,33 135,628,34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 IT Manager6 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050,1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989,6407 10,239,3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368,43 105,952,64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 119,875,69 122,872,58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 IT Administrator 5 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 119,875,69 122,872.58 IT Supervisora 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48,4843 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847,25 Senior IT Specialist3 343136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 IT Specialist 112 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565,1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 IT Specialist I2 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 IT Technician 11 1 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 IT Technician 1 1 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 Pag 9of12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 ANIL MCP Only 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 PUBLIC WORKS Director of PW/City 8 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 94.4376 96.7986 Engineer 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 15,969.9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 196,430.27 201,341.03 PUBLIC WORKS - CUSTODIAL Custodian 11 2 16.5044 16.9133 17.3378 17.7704 18.2185 18.6746 19.1386 19.6181 20.1057 20,6088 21.1279 (Y -Rate) 2,860.7600 2,931.6400 3,005.2200 3,080.2000 3,157.8700 3,236.9300 3,317.3500 3,400.4700 3,484.9800 3,572.1900 3,662.1700 34,329,12 35,179,68 36,062.64 36,962.40 37,894,44 38,843.16 39,808.20 40,805,64 41,819.76 42,866.28 43,946.04 Custodian 11 2 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454,8059 3,541,1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Custodian 1 1 14.4588 14,8202 15,1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17,1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING Engineering Manager7 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83,4691 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874, 5436 12,171, 4072 12,475.6924 12,787, 5847 13,107.2743 13,434, 9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494, 52 146,056.89 149,708,31 153,451, 02 157,287, 29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Principal Civil Engineer6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239,3817 10,495,3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584,9206 11,874,5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316,49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875,69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Senior Civil Engineer5 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026,6942 11,302,3616 11,584,9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Associate Civil Engineera 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316,49 114,099.41 Associate Engineer 114 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Associate Engineer 13 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46,1480 47.3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 Assistant Engineer 112 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41,8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729,2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Assistant Engineer12 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069,9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Engineering Technician 11 1 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Engineering Technician 1 1 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Page 10 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 PUBLIC WORKS - INSPECTIONS Construction Managera 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47,3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Supervising PW Inspector4 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246,6889 7,427.8562 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 Senior PW Inspector3 32.2230 33.0245 33.8500 34.6994 35.5640 36.4527 37.3650 38.3007 39.2599 40.2426 41.2493 (Y -Rate) 5,585.2400 5,724,8700 5,868.0000 6,014,7000 6,165.0700 6,319.2000 6,477,1800 6,639.1000 6,805.0800 6,975.2100 7,149.5900 67,023.01 68,690.96 70,408,00 72,174,75 73,973,12 75,821.62 77,719.20 79,665.46 81,660.59 83,704,61 85,798.54 Senior PW Inspector3 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248,7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2711 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751,25 PW Inspector II2 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 PW Inspector l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388,3182 5,523,0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659,82 66,276.31 PUBLIC WORKS - LANDSCAPE Maintenance Supervisor -5 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43,9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 Landscape 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998,9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847,25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601,46 111,316.49 114,099,41 Field Supervisor - Landscape 4 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781,71 80,751,25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior Landscape Inspector3 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 7,069,9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 La ndscape Inspector 112 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372,34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 La ndscape Inspector l 1 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31,0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 PUBLIC WORKS - MAINTENANCE Maintenance Manager7 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57,6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757,7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Maintenance 6 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42.8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52,2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Superintendent 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614,0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134.27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987,86 98,387,56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952,64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951,89 Maintenance Supervisor5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41,8078 42,8530 43.9243 45.0225 46,1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Field Supervisor -4 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 303282 31.0865 31,8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Maintenance 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Lead Maintenance Worker 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659.82 66,276,31 67,933.22 Maintenance Worker 11 2 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314,5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Maintenance Worker l 1 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24,2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533,0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512,15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396,06 55,755.96 Page 11 of 12 Class Family/Title Level CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Salary Steps 3.5 4.0 4.5 'M 5.0 MCP Only 5.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES Field Supervisor - Facilities 4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32,6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405,0171 6,565,1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Lead Maintenance Worker- 3 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Facilities 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802.6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544,15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372,34 73,156.65 Maintenance Worker 11 - 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27,4759 28,1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31,8636 Facilities 4,314,5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762,4881 4,881,5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082,75 64,659,82 66,276.31 Maintenance Worker l - 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Facilities 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578,60 60,043.07 PUBLIC WORKS - SIGNALS Maintenance Supervisor -5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48,4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54,8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Signal 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403,9375 8,614.0359 8,829,3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093,01 Field Supervisor - Signala 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998,9887 8,198.9634 8,403,9375 8,614,0359 8,829,3868 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Senior Signal Technician3 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42,8530 43.9243 45,0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565,1425 6,729,2711 6,897,5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427,8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134,27 91,362,63 93,646.70 95,987,86 Signal Technician 112 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40,7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631,55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860,20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960,27 Signal Technician I2 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34,3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37,8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661,1018 5,802,6294 5,947,6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897,5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 SUPPORT SERVICES Support Servicesa 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25,5141 26,1520 26.8057 27.4759 28,1628 28.8669 Supervisor 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Senior Support Services3 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22,0007 22,5507 23,1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 Technician 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422,4437 4,533.0048 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774,95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Support Services Technician2 18.5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20,4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Support Services Assistant 1 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18,9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21,4641 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642,54 37,558.60 38,497,57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556,47 44,645.38 Page 12 of 12 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding Under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Agreement for Funding under Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program for program funding for the Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. BACKGROUND: In April 2017, the Department of Public Works submitted a project application to RCTC in response to the Biennial Call for Projects for the Senate Bill 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program for the Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project. The proposed project includes the installation of buffered bike lanes and green thermoplastic bike legends along ten miles of roadways throughout the City. Six roadway segments were selected as priority roadways including segments of Butterfield Stage Road, Nicolas Road, Winchester Road, DePortola Road, and La Serena Way. The proposed improvements are located adjacent to or within a two-mile radius of various community services including parks, schools, recreational facilities, medical offices, retail and commercial centers, and employment centers. On July 12, 2017, RCTC approved 21 projects totaling $3,599,364 for SB821 funding. The City's project was not initially selected for funding pursuant to the scoring criteria. Due to the passage of SB1, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) augmented the ATP Cycle 3 program. Agencies which applied for projects under SB821, also applied under the ATP SB1 Augmentation call for projects and were subsequently awarded ATP SB1 program funds, and therefore no longer needed SB821 program funding. As a result, SB821 funds were freed up from projects approved through the ATP SB1 Augmentation and the next highest scored projects under SB821 were selected for funding. On October 11, 2017, RCTC approved the City of Temecula's Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping project for $132,300 of SB821 program funding. In order to utilize the funding made available, the City must enter into the Riverside County Transportation Commission Agreement for Funding under SB821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. The total estimated project cost is $189,000. SB821 Funds will provide for a maximum of $132,300, with a local match of $56,700. FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated project cost is $189,000, which includes a local match of $56,700 with a reimbursement of $132,300 from the SB821 program. Funds to support our local match are available in the City of Temecula's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2018-2022, Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide Project. ATTACHMENT: Agreement AGREEMENT No. 18-62-069-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM (Transportation Development Act Article 3; Senate Bill 821) This Funding Agreement ("AGREEMENT") is entered into as of , 2017 ("Effective Date"), by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and the City of Temecula ("RECIPIENT"). RCTC and RECIPIENT may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS A. RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. B. Under RCTC's SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program ("PROGRAM"), cities and counties in the County of Riverside are notified of the availability of PROGRAM funding and a call for projects ("CALL FOR PROJECTS") is anticipated to be issued biennially by RCTC. C. On February 6, 2017, a CALL FOR PROJECTS was published by RCTC seeking applications for FY 2018 PROGRAM funding, which applications were reviewed in accordance with the applicable evaluation criteria included in the CALL FOR PROJECTS. D. Based on the application attached as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by this reference, RECIPIENT has been selected to receive PROGRAM funding for its proposed Citywide Buffered Bike -Lane Striping Project ("PROJECT"). E. Funding for the PROJECT shall be provided pursuant to the terms contained in this AGREEMENT and pursuant to applicable PROGRAM policies adopted by RCTC, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 2. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding recitals and the mutual covenants and consideration contained herein, the Parties mutually agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the above recitals are true and correct, and hereby incorporate those recitals by this reference into the AGREEMENT. 2. RCTC Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to distribute to the RECIPIENT, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed One Hundred Thirty -Two Thousand, Three Hundred Dollars ($132,300), to be used exclusively for reimbursing the RECIPIENT Page 1 of 10 17336.00005\30277983 1 acknowledges and agrees that the FUNDING AMOUNT may be less than the actual and final cost of the PROJECT, which final costs are the sole responsibility of RECIPIENT, and RCTC will not contribute PROGRAM funds in excess of the maximum authorized in this Section 2 unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing by the PARTIES. In the event the FUNDING AMOUNT is not fully utilized by RECIPIENT for the PROJECT, the unused FUNDING AMOUNT must be returned to RCTC within ninety (90) days of a written request by RCTC unless RECIPIENT can demonstrate in writing, subject to written approval by RCTC in its sole discretion, the following: (i) valid reason for why PROJECT costs were significantly lower than the estimate included in RECIPIENT' s attached application for funding, and (ii) written proposal for how any unused FUNDING AMOUNT will be used for a proposal to support the PROJECT or other use that supports the goals and requirements of the PROGRAM. 2.1 Eligible Project Costs. Reimbursement for PROJECT costs ("REIMBURSEMENT") may only include those items expressly allowed for under Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (California Public Utilities Code section 99200 et seq.), which provides that funding shall be allocated for the construction, including related engineering expenses, of facilities based on the PROGRAM policies adopted by RCTC, provided that such items are included in the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 3 ("SCOPE OF WORK"). Costs incurred prior to approval of PROJECT funding and/or prior to the Effective Date shall be considered eligible for REIMBURSEMENT, provided that such costs are in compliance with the foregoing requirements. All PROJECT costs not included in the SCOPE OF WORK and not expressly permitted under Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act and the PROGRAM policies shall be considered ineligible for REIMBURSEMENT. In the event the SCOPE OF WORK needs to be amended, RECIPIENT shall submit a letter requesting such amendment, the reasons for the requested change and confirmation that costs associated with the proposed amendment are eligible for PROGRAM reimbursement for written approval by RCTC, which approval is subject to RCTC's discretion. In the event of any ambiguity between this AGREEMENT, PROGRAM policies, and applicable law, the following order of precedence will govern: (1) Applicable law; (2) PROGRAM policies; (3) this AGREEMENT. 2.2 Timing for Project Completion. In accordance with the PROGRAM policies attached hereto as Attachment 2, RECIPIENT has twenty-four (24) months to complete the PROJECT from the date of this AGREEMENT, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the PARTIES. If the PROJECT is not completed within 24 months, RCTC shall have the sole discretion to delete the PROJECT from the PROGRAM and reprogram the funding for future approved PROGRAM projects. RECIPIENT will not be reimbursed until the PROJECT is accepted as complete in writing by RCTC following the submission of the PROGRAM funding claim form ("CLAIM FORM") attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 4. In the event additional time is needed for the completion of the PROJECT, RECIPIENT may submit a letter to RCTC requesting an extension of time to complete the PROJECT with an explanation of why the PROJECT cannot be completed under the existing schedule for completion included as Attachment 3, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Before and after PROJECT photographs must be included with the CLAIM FORM upon PROJECT completion, as well as copies of paid invoices and any other backup requested for repayment and audit purposes. Page 2 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 2.3 Increases in Project Funding. The FUNDING AMOUNT may, at RCTC's sole discretion, be augmented with additional PROGRAM funds and local agency match funds proportionate to the amounts included in Section 3 if there is a FUNDING AMOUNT balance and the RECIPIENT provides justification as to the reason for the funding increase. Any such increase in the FUNDING AMOUNT must be approved in writing by RCTC's Executive Director and RCTC shall be under no obligation whatsoever to approve any increase in the FUNDING AMOUNT. No such increased funding shall be expended to pay for any PROJECT work already completed. 2.4 Cost Savings. In the event that bids or proposals for the PROJECT are lower than anticipated, or there are cost savings for any other reason, the FUNDING AMOUNT shall be reduced through an amendment to the AGREEMENT mutually agreed to in writing by the Parties. RECIPIENT shall inform RCTC of any cost savings and any cost savings shall be returned to RCTC or may be reprogrammed with written approval by RCTC for other RECIPIENT projects that align with the PROGRAM. No PROGRAM funding may be used for projects not approved by RCTC. If RECIPIENT provides a local match commitment and there are cost savings on the PROJECT, RCTC will still be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of PROJECT selection and approval despite such cost savings in accordance with PROGRAM policies. 2.5 No Funding for Temporary Improvements. Only segments or components of the PROJECT that are intended to form part of or be integrated into the PROJECT may be funded by PROGRAM funds. No improvement(s) which is/are temporary in nature, including but not limited to temporary lanes, curbs, or drainage facilities, shall be funded with PROGRAM funds except as needed for staged construction of the PROJECT. 2.6 Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of the final detailed invoice from the RECIPIENT clearly documenting work completed and corresponding costs, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the SCOPE OF WORK costs for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to the RECIPIENT within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the RECIPIENT for reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Additional details concerning the procedure for the RECIPIENT's submittal of invoices to RCTC and RCTC's consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Attachment 4. 2.7 Recipient's Funding Obligation to Complete the Work. In the event that the PROGRAM funds allocated to the SCOPE OF WORK represent less than the total cost of the PROJECT, RECIPIENT shall be solely responsible for providing such additional funds as may be required to complete the PROJECT. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of any SCOPE OF WORK performed at a PROJECT site. Further, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of RECIPIENT or its contractors relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by RECIPIENT or construction related to the PROJECT. Page 3 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 2.8 Recipient's Obligation to Repay Program Funds to RCTC. In the event it is determined, whether through a post -completion audit or otherwise, the PROJECT was not completed in accordance with the PROGRAM requirements or this AGREEMENT, RECIPIENT agrees that any PROGRAM funds distributed to RECIPIENT for the PROJECT shall be repaid in full to RCTC. The Parties shall enter into good faith negotiations to establish a reasonable repayment schedule and repayment mechanism which may include, but is not limited to, withholding of Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues, if applicable. RECIPIENT acknowledges and agrees that RCTC shall have the right to withhold any Measure A Local Streets and Roads revenues due to RECIPIENT, in an amount not to exceed the total of the PROGRAM funds distributed to RECIPIENT, and/or initiate legal action to compel repayment, if the RECIPIENT fails to repay RCTC within a reasonable time period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, including any good faith negotiations, from receipt of written notification from RCTC that repayment is required due to failure to comply with the PROGRAM policies or this AGREEMENT. 2.9 Records Retention and Audits. RECIPIENT shall retain all PROJECT records in an organized manner for a minimum of three (3) years following completion of the PROJECT. PROJECT records shall be made available for inspection by RCTC upon request. If a post PROJECT audit or review indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to the RECIPIENT in an amount in excess of the maximum PROGRAM provided for in this Section 2, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible PROJECT costs, the RECIPIENT shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within thirty (30) days of notification by RCTC. This Section 2.9 does not supersede any rights or remedies provided to RCTC under Section 2.8 or applicable law. 3. Recipient's Local Match Contribution. RECIPIENT shall provide at least Fifty -Six Thousand, Seven Hundred dollars ($56,700) of funding toward the SCOPE OF WORK, as indicated in RECIPIENT'S application attached as Attachment 1 and submitted to RCTC in response to its CALL FOR PROJECTS. The foregoing amount may be reduced, as part of an amendment to this AGREEMENT, if there are cost savings as further detailed in Section 2.4 above. RECIPIENT costs related to (i) preparation and administration costs related to invoices, billings and payments; (ii) any RECIPIENT fees attributed to the processing of the SCOPE OF WORK; and (iii) expenses for items not included within the attached SCOPE OF WORK shall be borne solely by the RECIPIENT and shall not qualify towards RECIPIENT's local match requirement in this Section 3. 4. Term: The term of this AGREEMENT shall be from the date first herein above written until: (i) the date RCTC formally accepts the PROJECT as complete, pursuant to Section 2.2; (ii) termination of this AGREEMENT pursuant to Section 14; or (iii) RECIPIENT has fully satisfied its obligations under this AGREEMENT. All applicable indemnification and insurance provisions of this AGREEMENT shall remain in effect following the termination of this AGREEMENT. 5. Recipient Responsibilities. RECIPIENT shall be responsible for all aspects of the PROJECT, in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, including: (i) development and approval of plans, specifications and engineer's estimate in accordance Page 4 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 with all applicable laws, regulations and building codes; obtaining any necessary environmental clearances; right of way acquisition; and, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to commencement of the PROJECT; (ii) all aspects of procurement, contracting, and administration of the contracts and claims for the PROJECT; (iii) all construction management of any construction activities undertaken in connection with the PROJECT, including surveying and materials testing; and, (iv) development of a budget for the PROJECT and SCOPE OF WORK prior to award of any contract for the PROJECT, taking into consideration available funding, including PROGRAM funds. 6. Indemnification. RECIPIENT shall defend, indemnify and hold RCTC, its officials, governing board members, officers, employees, agents, and consultants free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property, persons or government funding agency, including wrongful death, to the extent arising out of or incident to any intentional or negligent acts, errors or omissions of the RECIPIENT, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants related to a breach of this AGREEMENT or any act or omission arising out of the activities governed by this AGREEMENT. RECIPIENT'S obligation to indemnify includes without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other related costs and expenses of defense. RECIPIENT shall defend, at its own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants in connection with this AGREEMENT. RECIPIENT shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants in any such suits, actions or other legal proceedings, including any settlement. RECIPIENT's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds. 7. Expenditure of Funds by Recipient Prior to Execution of Agreement. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall be construed to prevent or preclude RECIPIENT from expending funds on the PROJECT prior to the execution of this AGREEMENT, or from being reimbursed by RCTC for such expenditures. However, RECIPIENT understands and acknowledges that any expenditure of funds on the PROJECT prior to the execution of the AGREEMENT is made at RI-:CIPIENT's sole risk and that some expenditures by RECIPIENT may not be eligible for reimbursement under this AGREEMENT. 8. Compliance with Applicable Laws and Insurance. RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including public contracting laws, requirements for any local state or federal funding used, and records retention and performance reporting requirements concerning the SCOPE OF WORK and PROJECT, which applicable laws and regulations shall be passed on to contractors by RECIPIENT as applicable. RECIPIENT shall have the responsibility of making sure the appropriate amounts of insurance are included in all applicable agreements for the construction of the PROJECT and RCTC shall be named as an Additional Insured on all insurance certificates obtained for the completion of the PROJECT. PROJECT insurance funds, when available, shall be utilized for the repayment of any claims determined to have merit. Page 5 of 10 17336.00005\30277983 1 9. Representatives of the Parties. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this AGREEMENT. RECIPIENT hereby designates Director of Public Works, or his or her designee, as RECIPIENT'S representative to RCTC. RECIPIENT'S representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of RECIPIENT for all purposes under this AGREEMENT and shall coordinate all activities with RCTC concerning the SCOPE OF WORK under the RECIPIENT's responsibility. RECIPIENT shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the PROJECT. 10. Monitoring of Progress by RCTC. RECIPIENT shall allow RCTC's designated representative, or designee, to inspect or review the progress of the work at any reasonable time with prior written notice by RCTC. RCTC may request that the RECIPIENT provide RCTC with progress reports concerning the status of the SCOPE OF WORK and PROJECT completion. 11. Binding on Successors in Interest. Each and every provision of this AGREEMENT shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the successors in interest of the Parties. Due to the specific obligations contemplated herein, this AGREEMENT may not be assigned by any Party hereto except with the prior written consent of the other Party. 12. Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by RECIPIENT or any contractor shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the PROJECT shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the RECIPIENT or contractor, whichever is applicable. The RECIPIENT or contractor shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the SCOPE OF WORK and as required by law. The RECIPIENT or contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations concerning such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. 13. Conflicts of Interest. For the term of this AGREEMENT, no member, officer or employee of RECIPIENT or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with RECIPIENT or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this AGREEMENT, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 14. Termination. This AGREEMENT may be terminated for cause or convenience as further specified below. 14.1 Termination for Convenience. Either RCTC or RECIPIENT may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this AGREEMENT, in whole or in part, for convenience by giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. 14.2 Effect of Termination for Convenience. In the event that RECIPIENT terminates this AGREEMENT for convenience, RECIPIENT shall, within 180 days, repay to Page 6 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 RCTC in full all PROGRAM funds provided to RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT. In the event that RCTC terminates this AGREEMENT for convenience, RCTC shall, within 90 days, distribute to the RECIPIENT PROGRAM funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from RECIPIENT regarding the SCOPE OF WORK for the PROJECT at the time of the notice of termination; provided, however, that RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 2.6, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information from RECIPIENT. This AGREEMENT shall terminate upon receipt by the non -terminating party of the amounts due it under this Section 14.2. 14.3 Termination for Cause. Either RCTC or RECIPIENT may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this AGREEMENT, in whole or in part, in response to a material breach hereof by the other Party, by giving written notice to the other Party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. The written notice shall provide a thirty (30) day period to cure any alleged breach. During the 30 day cure period, the Parties shall discuss, in good faith, the manner in which the breach can be cured. 14.4 Effect of Termination for Cause. In the event that RECIPIENT terminates this AGREEMENT in response to RCTC's uncured material breach hereof, RCTC shall, within ninety (90) days, distribute to the RECIPIENT PROGRAM funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from RECIPIENT regarding the SCOPE OF WORK for the PROJECT at the time of the notice of termination. In the event that RCTC terminates this AGREEMENT in response to the RECIPIENT's uncured material breach hereof, the RECIPIENT shall, within one hundred eighty (180) days, repay to RCTC in full all PROGRAM funds provided to RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT. Notwithstanding termination of this AGREEMENT by RCTC pursuant to this Section 14.4, RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 2.6, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information. This AGREEMENT shall terminate upon receipt by the terminating Party of the amounts due it under this Section 14.4. 14.5 No Program Funding. In the event that RCTC determines there are inadequate PROGRAM funds for whatever reason, RCTC shall have the ability to immediately terminate the AGREEMENT with written notice to RECIPIENT. In the event that RCTC terminates this AGREEMENT under this Section 14.5, RCTC shall, within 90 days, distribute to the RECIPIENT PROGRAM funds in an amount equal to the aggregate total of all unpaid invoices which have been received from RECIPIENT regarding the SCOPE OF WORK for the PROJECT at the time of the notice of termination; provided, however, that RCTC shall be entitled to exercise its rights under Section 2.6, including but not limited to conducting a review of the invoices and requesting additional information from RECIPIENT. 14.6 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section 14 are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this AGREEMENT. 15. Notice. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be effective upon receipt by the other Party. All notices and communications, including invoices, between the Parties to this Page 7 of 10 17336.00005\30277983 1 AGREEMENT shall be either personally delivered, sent by first-class mail, return receipt requested, sent by overnight express delivery service with postage or other charges fully prepaid as follows: TO RCTC: Anne Mayer Executive Director RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Phone: (951) 787-7141 TO RECIPIENT: Julie Tarrant Department of Public Works City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Phone: (951) 694-6463 Any party may update its address and contact information by providing written notice of the new information to the other Parties in accordance with this Section 15. 16. Prevailing Wages. RECIPIENT and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the SCOPE OF WORK are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et smq., which require the payment of prevailing wages where the SCOPE OF WORK or any portion thereof is determined to be a "public work," as defined therein. RECIPIENT shall ensure compliance with applicable prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform the SCOPE OF WORK or any portion thereof falling within the definition of "public work." RECIPIENT shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seg. on the PROJECT. 17. Equal Opportunity Employment. The Parties represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, sexual orientation, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 18. Entire Agreement. This AGREEMENT embodies the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties pertaining to the matters described herein and supersedes and cancels all prior oral or written agreements between the Parties with respect to these matters. Each Party acknowledges that no Party, agent or representative of the other Party has made any promise, representation or warranty, express or implied, not expressly contained in this AGREEMENT, that induced the other Party to sign this document. Modifications to this AGREEMENT shall be in the form of a written amendment executed by authorized representatives of the Parties to be bound. 19. Governing Law and Severability. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by, and be construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. If any portion of this Page 8 of 10 17336.00005\30277983.1 AGREEMENT is found to be unenforceable by a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction, the remainder of the AGREEMENT shall be severable and survive as binding on the Parties. 20. Attorneys' Fees. If any legal action is initiated for the enforcement/interpretation of this AGREEMENT, or because of any alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this AGREEMENT, the successful or prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled as determined by a court of law or appointed decider under alternative legal proceedings. 21. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 22. Section Headings and Interpretation. The section headings contained herein are for convenience only and shall not affect in any way the interpretation of any of the provisions contained herein. The AGREEMENT shall not be interpreted as being drafted by any Party or its counsel. 23. No Waiver. Failure of RCTC to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions in this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power provided under applicable law. 24. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this AGREEMENT. 25. Counterparts. This AGREEMENT may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all which together will constitute but one agreement. Facsimile copies of signatures shall be treated as originals. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] Page 9 of 10 17336 00005\30277983.1 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 18-62-069-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this AGREEMENT to be signed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date. RCTC RECIPIENT CITY OF TEMECULA By: By: -- Name: Anne Mayer Name: Aaron Adams Title: Executive Director APPROVE AS 0 FORM By: _ N Title: CS 1 '_ ` . DV/.4 ,.J[ 17336.00005\30277983.1 Title: City Manager ATTEST: By: Name: Randi Johl Title: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Name: Peter Thorson Title: City Attorney Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1 (RECIPIENT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING) Attachment 1 17336.00005\30277983.1 CITY OF TEMECULA TDA Article 3 (SB 821) PROJECT APPLICATION FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018 CITY OF TEMECULA CITYWIDE BUFFERED BIKE -LANE STRIPING April27, 2017 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Lead Agency: City of Temecula Project Name: Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping Contact Person: Patrick Thomas Title: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Telephone #: (951) 506-5163 Fax #: (951) 694-6475 Email Address: patrick.thomas@temeculaca.gov Address: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 II. PROJECT DETAILS Project type (check all that apply): ® Bicycle Project ❑ Pedestrian Project Project location: ❑ Coachella Valley ® Western Riverside County Does this project proposal include any of the following? (check all that apply): O Curb ❑ Gutter ❑ Driveway ramps If any of the above were checked, is the benefit provided for the exclusive use of bicyclists/pedestrians? ❑ No ® Yes III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe the project in its entirety. Include the need, benefit, and location of the project Photos of the existing site of the proposed project are encouraged. The proposed Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping project will include the installation of buffered bike lines and green thermoplastic bike legends along 10 miles of roadways throughout the City. The project will support the overall goals and objectives as part of our Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan and expand the City's bicycle trail network. The project will improve access, enhance connectivity and encourage residents to utilize non - motorized modes of travel for commuting and recreational uses. The primary benefits include, increased safety, accessibility and mobility. The buffered bike -lanes ultimately 1 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION reduce travel lane widths while creating an expanded buffer zone between motorists and bicyclists and also increases safety for pedestrians utilizing the adjacent sidewalks. The project locations are as follows; Butterfield Stage Road Butterfield Stage Road Nicolas Road Winchester Road DePortola Road La Serena Way Murrieta Hot Springs Road to La Serena Way Rancho California Road to DePortola Road Winchester Road to Joseph Road Margarita Road to Willows Avenue Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road *A map indicating, at a minimum, the project location must be included. (Ref: Exhibit A attached) IV. DESTINATIONS SERVED (15 pts) List and describe the destinations served by the proposed project (e.g. employment center, school/college, retail center, downtown area, park or recreation facility, library, museum, government office, medical facilities). For pedestrian projects, destinations served must be within a 3/4 -mile or less radius of the proposed project. For bicycle projects, destinations served must be within a 2 -mile or less radius of the proposed project. The proposed improvements will be located adjacent to or within a two mile radius of various community services including; • Parks • Schools • Community Recreation Facilities • Medical Offices • Retail and Commercial Centers • Employment centers *A map with numbered destinations served must be included. (Ref: Exhibit B attached) 2 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION V. SAFETY (10 pts) Describe the extent to which the proposed project will increase safety for the non -motorized public. Include information about project characteristics such as: no existing shoulder within project limits, no existing/planned sidewalk or bikeway adjacent to the project, etc. Applicants may wish to consider including documented pedestrian/bicycle collision history, most current and valid 85th percentile speed of motorized traffic in project limits, photos of existing safety hazards the project will address, existing pedestrian/bicycle traffic counts, student attendance figures for schools served by project. The proposed Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping project will provide for increased safety for non -motorized public uses by incorporating traffic calming measures to reduce traffic lanes, narrow travel lane widths and install buffered bike lanes along major roadways. Approximately ten (10) miles of new Class 11 buffered bike -lanes will be installed, along with green thermoplastic bike lane legends, which will enhance the visibility of the buffered bike lane for motorists and bicyclists alike. The proposed project improves access and mobility to the arterial roadway network for non -motorized public for commuting and recreational uses. VI. PROJECT ENHANCEMENT (5 pts) Provide information about any enhancements the proposed project includes that would encourage people to use the facility; for example, ADA ramps, bicycle lockers or other bicycle amenities, or completing a missing Zink. Said enhancements must pre-exist or be part of the project proposal. The Citywide Buffered Bike -lane Striping will be installed at locations where bike lanes do not currently exist and will expand the existing bike -lane network by providing an additional buffered separation between motorists and bicyclists. The proposed project also eliminates missing links and provides gap closures along various roadways and enhances the overall bicycle trail network within the City. VII. MULTIMODAL ACCESS (5 pts) List each bus stop or park and ride facility served by the proposed project. For pedestrian projects, destinations served must be within a %-mile or less radius of the proposed project. For bicycle projects, destinations served must be within a 2 -mile or less radius of the proposed project. Bus Stops - a minimum of 23 bus stops are within a 2 -mile or less radius from the access point/terminus of the Class I1 bike -lane improvements. 3 FY17/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION Park -n -Ride - Four (4) designated park and ride facilities are within a 2 -mile or Tess radius from the access point/terminus of the Class I1 bike -lane improvements. *A map with numbered bus stops and/or park and rides served must be included. (Ref: Exhibit C attached) VIII. PROJECT BUDGET AND SCHEDULE The project budget and local match may only encompass the pedestrian or bicycle facility project; no additional maintenance, street projects, etc. expenses should be included. Total Estimated Project Cost $ 189,000 ( 100 %) Local Match* Committed: (10 pts) $ 56,700 ( 30 %) SB 821 Funds Requested: $ 132 300 ( 70 % ) *Supporting documentation of proposed match must be included. OzAk. atleh m prc('QEf bald) Breakdown of Estimated Project Cost (must add up to "Total Estimated Project Cost" above): _:J Engineering/Administration $ 35,000 Right -of -Way $ -0- Construction $ 154,000 Other (specify): $ Estimated Construction start date (Mo/Yr): 02/18 Estimated Construction end date (Mo/Yr): 11/18 IX. CERTIFICATION I certify that the information presented herein is complete and accurate and, if this agency receives funding, it will be used solely for the purposes stated in this application and following the adopted policies. Signature Title Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date April 27, 2017 expstat.rpt 04/26/2017 4:03PM Periods: 0 through 14 Expenditure Status Report Page: 1 CITY OF TEMECULA 07/0112016 through 6/30/2017 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 165 CIRCULATION PUBLIC WORKS CIP PROJECTS Account Number 703 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM 703.5801 ADMINISTRATION 703.5802 DESIGN & ENVIRONMENTAL 703.5804 CONSTRUCTION Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND Grand Total Adjusted Year-to-date Year-to-date Prct Appropriation Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance Used 20,000.00 12,142.75 422,720.00 454,862 75 454,862.75 0.00 12,142.75 1,598.80 13,741.55 13,741.55 0.00 12,142.75 1,598.80 13,741.55 0.00 0.00 16,819.00 16,819.00 13,741.55 16,819.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 404,302.20 4.36 424,302.20 6.72 424,302.20 6.72 Page: 1 41#7! Tut r.t1 nt TEMECULA • w i,r..... ,,. 9r_...... Exhibit A - Proposed Buffered Bike -lane Striping Locations r, ,,, it . �• p f. . • 1 • • 11181P la. . 4.0 • 1111"116W1411: • • I1 1,• I • I 4,4. 4 10,221.4 • •X-re4114, 1 } ,..�••••l1, 1. 61,329 ....10000001 .4111 0 5,110.71 10,221.4 Feet WGS_1984_Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere C Latitude Geographies Group Ltd This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or othelwrse reliat>Ice. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Highways HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY City of Temecula Boundary • Creeks Open Space Hillside 10-0 1 0 ar, Jay p Rural (0 1-02 D',2, * -C •wm�:: ) Vineyards/Agnc sa�ua$ • Open Space TnbalTaelLands Lakes ❑ Cities Proposed Bike Lanes Notes \ TIM.. CITY ilk TEMECULA • Exhibit B - Destinations Served 1060 • Medical Offices' Employment Imo- Centers Schools 1 111 Medical Offices -•art• 1: 74,475 0 12,412.5 6,206.24 12,412.5 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere 0 Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. HIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Highways HWV INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY , City of Temecula Boundary Creeks Open Space Hillside 0-0 1 DU/AC Max } Rural (01-02 DU/AC Max ) V ineyards/Agncultural id Open Space Tnbal Trust Lands Lakes ❑ Cities Notes f r tti. TIIk, CII'\ n! We. TEM L•'CU 1 A Exhibit C - Bus Stops & Park & Ride Lots i 12 Legend Highways HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY City of Temecula Boundary Creeks Open Space Hillside (0-0 1 DU/AC Max ) Rural (0 1-0? DU/AC Max ) Vineyards/Agncullural Open Space Tribal Trust Lands Lakes Cities 15 17 19 22 1: 66,701 O 11,116.8 5,558.40 11,116.8 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere ® Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION #1-23 Bus Stops P — Park & Ride Lots Notes ATTACHMENT 2 (PROGRAM POLICIES) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES Transportation Development Act Policies 1. Up to 5% of Article 3 apportionment can be used to supplement other funding sources used for bicycle and safety education programs; the allocation cannot be used to fully fund the salary of a person working on these programs. 2. Article 3 money shall be allocated for the construction, including related engineering expenses, of the facilities, or for bicycle safety education programs. 3. Money may be allocated for the maintenance of bicycling trails, which are closed to motorized traffic. 4. Facilities provided for the use of bicycles may include projects that serve the needs of commuting bicyclists, including, but not limited to, new trails serving major transportation corridors, secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, and transit terminals where other funds are available. 5. Within 30 days after receiving a request for a review from any city or county, the transportation -planning agency shall review its allocations. 6. Up to 20 percent of the amount available each year to a city or county may be allocated to restripe Class II bicycle lanes. 7. A portion of each city's allocation may also be used to develop comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Plans must emphasize bike/pedestrian facilities that support utilitarian bike/pedestrian travel rather than solely recreational activities; a maximum of one entire allocation per five years may be used for plan development. 8. Allowable maintenance activities for the local funds are limited to maintenance and repairs of Class I off-street bicycle facilities only. RCTC Policies 1. The SB 821 Call for Projects will occur on a biennial basis, with a release date of the first Monday of every other February and a close date of the last Thursday of every other April, beginning in 2015. 2. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for award. 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. 4. Agencies being awarded an allocation will be reimbursed in arrears only upon submitting adequate proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, copies of paid invoices, and photographs of the completed project. Attachment 2 17336.00005\30277983.1 5. The allocated amount represents the maximum amount eligible for reimbursement. For projects completed under the allocated amount, the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. 6. The Commission expects all projects to be ready for construction; therefore, an agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project. There will be no time extensions granted unless the reason for the delay is due to unforeseen circumstances. Where substantial progress or a compelling reason for delay can be shown, the agency may be granted administrative extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive Director. 7. Any programmed and unused Article 3 Program funds will be forfeited unless that agency can a) utilize the unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the approved project or b) apply the funds to a project previously submitted under an Article 3 call for projects and approved by the Commission, subject to Executive Director approval. 8. Design and construction of facilities must conform to the general design criteria for non - motorized facilities as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 9. Temporary facilities, projects in the bid process, or projects that are under construction will not be funded. 10. The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests; such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year. 11. Following each call, staff will monitor the equity of allocations to Coachella Valley versus Western Riverside County; the allocation should be relative to what the Coachella Valley's share would have been if distributed on a per capita basis (the percentage of funds applied for should also be taken into consideration). If the allocation is often found to be inequitable to the Coachella Valley, staff will recommend adoption of a new policy to correct the imbalance. 12. Certain costs at times associated with bicycle/pedestrian projects are not eligible when the benefit provided is not the exclusive use of bicyclists/pedestrians, such as: curb and gutter as part of roadway drainage system, driveway ramps installed across sidewalks, and where roadway design standards require a roadway shoulder width that is at least as wide as a standard bike lane. Attachment 2 17336.00005\30277983,1 ATTACHMENT 3 (SCOPE OF WORK) SCOPE OF WORK: FUNDING: *Local Match Source: Local City Funds If Total Project Cost is lower than anticipated, Article 3 will be reimbursed at 30% of Total Project Cost. BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL PROJECT COST ARTICLE 3 LOCAL MATCH %* TOTAL PROJECT $ 154,000 AWARD $ 189,000 COST PROJECT TITLE: Citywide Buffered $132,300 $56,700 30% $189,000 Bike -Lane Striping *Local Match Source: Local City Funds If Total Project Cost is lower than anticipated, Article 3 will be reimbursed at 30% of Total Project Cost. BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL PROJECT COST Engineering and Administration (Admin. for local match only) $ 35,000 Construction $ 154,000 Total Project Cost $ 189,000 TIMETABLE: Provide at a minimum the beginning and ending dates for each phase of work including major milestones within a phase. Phase Engineering Start End March 2018 October 2018 Construction March 2019 June 2019 17336.00005\30277983 1 Comments Attachment 3 ATTACHMENT 4 (PAYMENT CLAIM FORM) TDA ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES NON -TRANSIT CLAIM FORM FY 2017/18 CLAIMANT: COUNTY: RIVERSIDE ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: TELEPHONE NO.: I verify that the information on this Claim Form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signed: Date: PROJECT NAME: START DATE (Mo/Yr): COMPLETED DATE (Mo/Yr): TDA ARTICLE 3 REVENUES AND EXPENSES OF CLAIMANT: Total Project Cost: Local Match Spent: $ (100%) $ (Enter %) SB 821 Funds Spent: $ (Enter %) Breakdown of Total Project Cost: Administration (for local match only): Engineering: Right -of -Way (for local match only): Construction: (Include final billing and back up for Construction Contract documentation) $ Other: (Specify) (for local match only) $ Total Claim (must add up to "Total Project Cost" above) : $ Attachment 4 17336.00005\30277983.1 $ ASSURANCE OF MAINTENANCE TDA ARTICLE 3 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES WHEREAS, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HAS ALLOCATED TO THE CITY/COUNTY OF SIDEWALK/BIKEWAY PROJECT PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT DATED , 2017; AND, WHEREAS, THIS INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS CAN BE FULLY REALIZED IF THIS FACILITY IS MAINTAINED TO ADEQUATE OPERATING STANDARDS FOR USE BY COMMUTER AND RECREATIONAL PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLISTS: THEREFORE, THE CITY/COUNTY OF ASSURES THAT THIS FACILITY WILL BE MAINTAINED AT ADEQUATE OPERATING STANDARDS AND RCTC SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS MAINTENANCE ASSURANCE THROUGH APPROPRIATE AND LAWFUL MEANS. SIGNED: TITLE: DATE: 17336.00005\30277983.1 Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement with Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC, for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements Related to the Temecula Park and Ride Project PREPARED BY: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA BACKGROUND: On February 23, 2016, the City Council awarded a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc. (AGI), in the amount of $1,471,777, to construct the improvements for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 (Project). The Project is located at the northeasterly corner of La Paz Street and Temecula Parkway and consists of a total of 157 parking spaces, site lighting (LED with down -shielding), drainage, landscaping and irrigation using recycled water, perimeter sidewalks, and bicycle lockers. Construction began on March 24, 2016, and it was scheduled for completion in October 2016. Construction was suspended on the Project in September 2016 due to a dispute with the contractor and the original contract was terminated. Currently, the Project construction is approximately 40% complete. The Plans and Specifications for the Project required updating to reflect existing conditions. The updated Plans and Specifications were needed to rebid the Project and complete the construction. A revised set of Plans and Specifications was prepared by Michael Baker International (MBI). On August 8, 2017, the City Council approved the updated Plans and Specifications and authorized rebidding the project. The Engineer's estimate to complete the project is $1,090,000. The City has been negotiating a Settlement Agreement and Release with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (HOA) regarding construction and operation of the Temecula Park and Ride Project. Terms of the Agreement include the City developing cross -lot access to and from the Park and Ride site such that access will not be needed from Vallejo Avenue; and pledging sufficient funds for construction of the cross -lot access which shall be subject to a separate reimbursement agreement between the City and adjacent property owner. The Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement with Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC (TVH) satisfy terms of the Settlement Agreement. According to the Access Easement Agreement, TVH grants to the City a non-exclusive perpetual easement over an area of the TVH property aligning with Wabash Lane. This area shall be wide enough to construct a driveway with single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of TVH property and provide sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting City property (Park and Ride site). The agreement requires the City to construct a traffic signal and related improvements at the intersection of Wabash Lane and Temecula Parkway and asphalt improvements through the easement area connecting to the Park and Ride site. The agreement also provides for shared maintenance costs of the easement area. The estimated cost of the traffic signal and onsite improvements is approximately $450,000; consisting of $350,000 for the traffic signal and $100,000 for onsite improvements. The Reimbursement Agreement requires TVH to reimburse the City an amount of $175,000 as TVH's total contribution toward the traffic signal and onsite improvements. TVH will have the option of reimbursing the City within 45 days after completion of the improvements; or, upon submittal of a development application for the TVH property or at the time that TVH transfers its interest in any portion of the property to another party; whichever is earlier. This Project is exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15332, In -Fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. FISCAL IMPACT: The Reimbursement Agreement obligates the City to construct the traffic signal at Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane, and onsite improvements with estimated cost of $450,000. The adjacent property owner will reimburse the City $175,000 toward the traffic signal and onsite improvements. Staff will request a budget appropriation for the traffic signal and onsite improvements as part of a future City Council action to initiate this project. ATTACHMENT: 1. Resolution Approving Access Easement Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement 2. Access Easement Agreement 3. Reimbursement Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approval of Agreements. The City Council hereby approves the agreements entitled "Access Easement Agreement" and "Reimbursement Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements, and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in the form presented to the City Council with such non -substantive changes as may be approved by the City Attorney as necessary and convenient to implement the purposes of the Agreement. 2. City Manager Authority. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary and convenient to implement the Agreement and to enter into such additional agreements as may be necessary and convenient to implement the agreements, including but not limited to, executing operating memoranda and agreements, certifications, escrow, amendments to the Agreement, and similar agreements and actions. 3. CEQA. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City's approval of the Agreement is exempt from CEQA and further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be filed in compliance with CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Agreement provides for the maintenance of sidewalks that meander back and forth between the Association's common areas and the City's right-of-way. As such, there is no possibility that the Agreement will have a significant effect on the environment. 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 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Clerk's Office SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE APNs 922-190-035 & 922-190-033 [X] Portions Documentary Transfer Tax $0.00 This Instrument is for the benefit of the City of Temecula and is exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383), Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary Transfer Tax (Rev & Tax Code § 11922). ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Access Easement Agreement ("Access Easement") is entered into by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC ("TVH"). The City and TVH are referred to below collectively as the "Parties". This Access Easement is effective on the date it is fully executed by the Parties ("Effective Date"). RECITALS A. The City is the record fee owner of that certain real property located at 30100 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, and identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-035 ("City Property"). The City plans to construct the Temecula Park and Ride Project on the City Property. B. TVH is the record fee owner of that certain approximate 2.53 -acre vacant real property identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("TVH Property"). The TVH parcel is directly adjacent to the City Parcel. C. Based on the location of the City Property, it is not feasible to construct a direct access point to the City Property off of Temecula Parkway. The proposed access to the City Property is via the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane through the adjacent TVH Property. TVH has offered to grant to the City and the City wishes to accept an access easement over a portion of the TVH Property described below to provide the general public with vehicular access, egress and ingress to the adjacent City Property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. TVH hereby grants to the City a non-exclusive perpetual easement over an area on the TVH Property aligning with Wabash Lane, wide enough to construct a driveway with a single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the -1- abutting City Property at a location along the westerly property line of the TVH Property ("Easement Area"). Said Easement Area is roughly described on Exhibit "A" hereto and is estimated to be roughly 15% of the overall TVH Property area. The purpose of the non- exclusive perpetual access easement on the Easement Area is to provide to the City and the general public the rights to vehicular access, ingress and egress over and through the Easement Area to the City Property. This Access Easement includes the right for the City and its designees to enter the Easement Area to construct the improvements described in Section 2 below, and the right to enter the Easement Area to repair and maintain said improvements under the terms of this Agreement. The City Property is the property benefitted by this Access Easement and the TVH Property is the property burdened by this Access Easement. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Easement Area will be described more particularly by the Parties after the City constructs on the TVH Property the improvements discussed in Section 2 below. The Parties acknowledge that the Easement Area may be modified further in the future when TVH develops the TVH Property. The Parties agree that they will cooperate and enter into any necessary Amendment(s) to this Access Easement to more particularly describe the Easement Area at such time. 2. City's Construction of Improvements in Easement Area. The City agrees that it will construct (i) traffic signal and related improvements at the intersection of Wabash Lane and Temecula Parkway, including curb, gutter and drainage and (ii) driveway improvements on the TVH Property at the proposed access point off of Wabash Lane and Temecula Parkway and asphalt improvements through the Easement Area to the City Property (collectively "Subject Improvements") pursuant to the terms of the Reimbursement Agreement entered into between the City and TVH regarding the Subject Improvements. Following completion of the traffic signal and cross -lot access improvements connecting to the City Property, the City will close the existing driveway onto Vallejo Road by constructing the improvements described in the settlement agreement between the City of Temecula and the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (LRHOA) thereby rendering the area consistent with the remainder of the street frontage along Vallejo Road. 3. Maintenance from Date of Construction of Subject Improvements to Date Development Application for TVH Property is Approved by City. The City and TVH agree that the City is responsible for maintaining the Easement Area in good condition and repair and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes and regulations from the date of the City's construction of the Subject Improvements to the date the City approves a Development Application for the TVH Property. During this time period, the City will maintain reasonable liability and casualty insurance for the Easement Area at its expense, naming TVH as additional insured. The City will provide evidence of such insurance to TVH within 15 calendar days of the City's construction of the Subject Improvements in the Easement Area, and thereafter upon written request of TVH. If the City fails to maintain and/or repair said Easement Area, TVH will provide to the City written notice of said failure. If the City has not repaired or maintained the area within ten calendar days of the TVH's notice, TVH has the right, but not the obligation, to maintain and repair the Subject Improvements in the Easement Area. In such case, TVH will provide to the City an invoice for TVH's reasonable costs of such maintenance and repair and the City will reimburse TVH for said costs within 30 calendar days of receiving said invoice. -2- 4. Shared Costs of Maintenance from Date Development Application for TVH Property is Approved by City. The City and TVH agree that, following completion of the Subject Improvements, TVH is responsible for maintaining the Easement Area in good condition and repair and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes and regulations from the date on which a development application for the TVH Property is approved by the City. The City represents and warrants that it currently has, and will at all times during and following completion of the Subject Improvements, maintain reasonable liability and casualty insurance for the Easement Area, at its expense, and will name TVH as an additional insured before commencing the Subject Improvements, provide evidence of such insurance to the TVH before commencing the Subject Improvements, and thereafter upon written request of TVH. TVH will maintain reasonable liability and casualty insurance for the Easement Area, at its expense, naming the City as additional insured. TVH will provide evidence of such insurance to the City within 15 calendar days of the date on which a development application for the TVH Property is approved by the City, and thereafter upon written request of the City. If TVH fails to maintain and/or repair said Easement Area, the City will provide to TVH written notice of said failure. If TVH has not repaired or maintained the Easement Area within ten calendar days of the City's notice, the City has the right, but not the obligation, to maintain and repair the Subject Improvements in the Easement Area. The City and TVH agree that the City and TVH will share the reasonable maintenance costs of the Easement Area from the date on which the City approves a development application for the TVH Property. Maintenance costs include all expenses reasonably incurred in TVH's sole discretion to keep the Easement Area in a safe and presentable condition, fit for its intended purpose, and to comply with all legal and contractual obligations then in effect. TVH will provide to the City an invoice on or before December 31 of each calendar year for the reasonable costs of maintaining the Easement Area. Said invoice will itemize and detail the maintenance costs for the Easement Area. The City will pay fifty percent (50%) of the amount of the invoice for the reasonable maintenance costs for the Easement Area within 30 business days of receipt of said invoice. TVH agrees to provide any additional back- up documentation to support said invoice within five business days of receiving the City's written request for said back-up documentation. TVH agrees to maintain all improvements, landscaping and horse trail along Vallejo Road adjacent to the TVH Property and the City Property, as required by the LRHOA. The City will own, be solely responsible for, and will maintain the new traffic signal at its sole cost. 5. Reasonable Use by the City Property. Any entrance upon or movement across the Easement Area by any occupant or invitee of the City Property shall be conducted in such a way that it does not damage or unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Easement Area or the TVH Property, or otherwise unreasonably increase the burden on the Easement Area or the TVH Property beyond the contemplated use ("Unreasonable Burdens"). The City shall repair and/or replace any damage to the Easement Area or the TVH Property due to any Unreasonable Burdens by the occupants or invitees of the City Property at its sole cost, and indemnify TVH for any damage to the Easement Area caused by any Unreasonable Burdens. 6. Right of TVH Property to Relocate Part of Easement Area. It is understood and agreed that, over time, the TVH Property may be redeveloped in such a manner that the Easement Area may need to be partially relocated, in which case the then owner of the TVH Property may do so, at its sole cost, provided that it obtains the approval of the City or the then owner of the City Property, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. No such partial relocation will materially and adversely affect the City Property's use and enjoyment of the Easement Area. -3- 7. Covenant Running with Land. This Access Easement is expressly for the benefit of the City Property and will be binding upon TVH and its successors -in -interest and will encumber the portion of the TVH Property described in the Easement Area. The terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein will inure to the benefit of the City Property and will bind all parties now having an interest in, under or to the TVH Property or the Easement Area, and the successors -in -interest and assigns of TVH to the TVH Property. 8. No Structures or Barriers. The Parties agree that no wall, fence or barrier of any kind which impairs or impedes access to, or use of the Easement Area will be constructed or maintained on the Easement Area. Further, the Parties will not do anything that prevents, impairs or discourages the use, or will prevent, impair or discourage the use or exercise, of the free access and movement across and through the Easement Area to the City Property or TVH Property. 9. Taxes. TVH will pay all taxes and assessments affecting the Easement Area and Property when due. 10. TVH's Representations Re: Liens and/or Monetary Encumbrances. TVH represents and warrants to City that (i) the Easement Area is not subject to any deeds of trust or other monetary liens (except liens for property taxes and assessments not yet due) or (ii) that if the Easement Area is subject to a deed of trust or other monetary lien, TVH will, within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date, initiate such actions as reasonably required to obtain from any beneficiaries under said deed of trust and/or monetary liens a consent and subordination of said deed of trust and/or monetary lien to this Access Easement or partial reconveyance for the Easement Area, and provide a copy of said subordination and/or partial reconveyance to the City. 11. Notices. All notices and demands will be given in writing by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by overnight carrier. Notices will be considered given upon the earlier of (a) two business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (b) one business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. The parties will address such notices as provided below or as may be amended by written notice: City: Copy to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Aaron Adams, City Manager Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney TVH Temecula Valley Hospitality c/o Fine Hospitality Group 640 W. Lambert Road Brea, California 92821 Attention: Ken Pansuria -4- 12. Miscellaneous. a. No Joint Venture. No provision of this Access Easement will be deemed to constitute the City and TVH as partners, principal and agent, or joint venturers with one another. b. No Brokers. TVH represents and warrants that no brokers have been retained or consulted in connection with this transaction. c. Amendments. Any amendments to this Access Easement will be effective only when duly executed by both the City and TVH. d. Applicable Law. This Access Easement will be construed and interpreted under, and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California. e. Successors and Assigns. This Access Easement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. The Parties expressly agree and acknowledge that the obligations and rights under the Access Easement may be assigned by the City and TVH to the successors in interest of the City Property and TVH Property, respectively. Such transfer and assignment of the City's obligations and rights under the Access Easement to the successors in interest of the City Property shall not constitute an obligation by said successors in interest to construct a Park and Ride Lot on the City Property. Said successors in interest or assigns of the City Property, however, shall assume all other obligations and responsibilities under the Access Easement. Any future development of the City Property by any successors in interest will be subject to the applicable zoning and General Plan designations. f. Counterparts and Facsimile and Electronic Signatures. This Access Easement may be executed simultaneously in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. For purposes of this Access Easement, facsimile and electronic signatures will be deemed to be original signatures. g. Remedies Not Exclusive and Waivers. No remedy conferred by any of the specific provisions of this Access Easement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy and each and every remedy will be cumulative and will be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The election of any one or more remedies will not constitute a waiver of the right to pursue other available remedies. h. Interpretation and Construction. Each party has reviewed this Access Easement and each has had the opportunity to have its respective counsel and real estate advisors review and revise this Access Easement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party will not apply in the interpretation of this Access Easement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. In this Access Easement the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words "person" and "party" include corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association wherever the context so requires. The Recitals and captions of the Sections and Subsections of this Access Easement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein -5- will in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Access Easement. i. Attorneys' Fees. If either party hereto incurs attorneys' fees in order to enforce, defend or interpret any of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Access Easement or because of a breach of this Access Easement by the other party, the prevailing party, whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration or settlement will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the other party. j. Severability. If any part, term or provision of this Access Easement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining provisions will not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties will be construed and enforced as if this Access Easement did not contain the particular part, term or provision held to be invalid. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -6- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Access Easement is executed on the dates set forth below: Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC A California limited liability company Dated: , 2017 By: City of Temecula, a municipal corporation Dated: , 2017 Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Title: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor -7- Exhibit "A" Rough Description of Easement Area (Portions of APN 922-190-033) The Easement Area is an area on that certain approximate 2.53 -acre vacant real property identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("TVH Property") that aligns with Wabash Lane, wide enough to construct a driveway with a single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting real property owned by the City of Temecula and located at 30100 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, and identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("City Property"), at a location along the westerly property line of the TVH Property. Said Easement Area is estimated to be roughly 15% of the overall TVH Property area. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY On before me, , Notary Public personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity(ies) upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above Signature of Notary Public REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITALITY, LLC FOR TEMECULA PARKWAY/WABASH LANE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS This Reimbursement Agreement for Temecula Parkway/Wabash Lane Traffic Signal Improvements and Certain Onsite Improvements is entered into between the City of Temecula ("City") and Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC, a California limited liability company ("TVH"). The City and TVH are referred to below collectively as the "Parties". The Agreement is effective on the date that it is fully executed by the Parties ("Effective Date"). RECITALS A. The City is the record fee owner of that certain real property located at 30100 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, and identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-035 ("City Property"). The City plans to construct the Temecula Park and Ride Project ("Park and Ride") on the City Property. B. TVH is the record fee owner of that certain approximate 2.53 -acre vacant real property identified as Riverside County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 922-190-033 ("TVH Property"). The TVH parcel is located directly adjacent to the City parcel. C. Based on the location of the City Property, it is not feasible to construct a direct access point to the City Property off of Temecula Parkway. The proposed access to the City Property is via the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane through the adjacent TVH Property. D. The City and TVH contemplate entering into an Access Easement Agreement that provides for TVH's grant to the City of an access easement over a portion of the TVH Property to authorize the City to construct on the TVH Property a driveway and asphalt improvements and to provide the general public with vehicular access, egress and ingress through the TVH Property to the adjacent City Property. E. Constructing access to the TVH Property from the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane will require the installation of a traffic signal and construction of related improvements at the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane, including curb, gutter and drainage (collectively "Traffic Signal Improvements"). The Traffic Signal Improvements are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. F. Certain onsite improvements, including a driveway cut-out, driveway improvements, asphalt pavement, and any necessary storm drain improvements, will be required on the TVH Property to allow for public vehicular access through a portion of the TVH Property to the Park and Ride that the City will construct on the City Property (collectively "Onsite Improvements"). The scope and location of the Onsite Improvements are described on Exhibit "B" hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. G. TVH plans to develop the TVH Property in the future with a use that is consistent with the City's General Plan and applicable zoning. As a condition of development of the TVH Property, TVH will likely be required to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements to provide for full access to the TVH Property. The Traffic Signal Improvements are necessary to provide for full access off of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane in connection with the proposed future development of the TVH Property. Further, additional onsite improvements complimentary to, or to replace the City constructed Onsite Improvements, are also necessary to provide access, ingress and egress from the adjacent public streets to the TVH Property and through the TVH Property. H. The City and TVH have studied the nature of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements and the benefits that said improvements will have on the TVH Property and City Property. Construction of said improvements at this time will provide for full access to the TVH Property instead of limited right -in and right -out access and will result in time and cost savings in the future for TVH at the time of development of the TVH parcel. Construction of said improvements will benefit the City Property by providing vehicular access, egress and ingress through the TVH Property to the adjacent City Property. I. The City plans to commence construction of the City's Park and Ride on the City Property in the near future. Accordingly, it is necessary that the City construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements as soon as possible to ensure vehicular access to the City Property via the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane through the Easement Area on the TVH Property, which is roughly described in the Access Agreement as an area aligning with Wabash Lane, wide enough to construct a driveway with a single lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting City Property at a location along the westerly property line of the City Property. The Easement Area is estimated to be roughly 15% of the overall TVH Property area. The City's construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements is in the public interest because these improvements will allow vehicular access to the adjacent City Property. J. The City and TVH estimate that the cost of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements is approximately $450,000, consisting of $350,000 for the Traffic Signal Improvements and $100,000 for the Onsite Improvements. The Parties, however, recognize that economic conditions at the time of bidding and construction conditions could alter the accuracy of these estimates. K. The Parties now desire to set forth the terms of the City's use of portions of the TVH Property to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and the Onsite Improvements and TVH's reimbursement to the City for a portion of the costs of said improvements. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Construction of Traffic Signal Improvements. The City will construct and install the Traffic Signal Improvements at the intersection of Temecula Parkway and Wabash Lane in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and codes and in conformance with plans and specifications subject to the approval of the City's Director of Public Works. 2. Construction of Onsite Improvements on TVH Property. The City's Director of Public Works and TVH's engineer will meet within 15 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement to mutually set the grade for the driveway access to the City Property that will be work and accommodate future development on the TVH Property. Within 15 calendar days of said meeting, the City and TVH will meet and discuss the draft plans and specifications for the Onsite Improvements and the precise location of said Onsite Improvements. TVH agrees to deliver to the City in writing any comments to the draft plans and specifications within ten calendar days of said meeting, which the City agrees to make good faith efforts to accommodate. TVH's failure to submit to the City in writing any comments to the draft plans and specifications within said ten-day period will constitute approval by TVH of said draft plans and specifications. The City will provide a courtesy copy of the final plans and specifications to TVH at the time that it submits said plans to the City's Director of Public Works for approval. 3. Payment of Reimbursable Costs. Within 45 calendar days after filing a Notice of Completion for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements on the TVH Property, the City will submit to TVH the City's actual cost of installing and constructing the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. TVH will submit to the City the sum of $175,000.00 ("Reimbursable Costs") as TVH's total and only contribution obligation towards the costs of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements, regardless of the actual cost. TVH will have the option of (a) submitting the $175,000.00 Reimbursable Costs to the City within 45 calendar days of receiving said costs from the City or (b) submitting the Reimbursable Costs to the City upon submittal of a development application for the TVH Property or at the time that the TVH transfers its interest in any portion of the TVH Property to another party, whichever is earlier. TVH agrees and acknowledges that TVH WILL let the City know in writing within 10 calendar days of the City's notification to TVH of the Notice of Completion, whether TVH will choose option (a) or (b) above and that if TVH chooses option (b), the City will place a lien on the TVH Property in the amount of $175,000.00 for the Reimbursement Costs. The City will remove said lien upon TVH's payment of the Reimbursement Costs to the City. 4. City Obligations. The City will complete the following to implement the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements on the TVH Property: a. Design the Traffic Signal Improvements consistent with the description set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto, and in accordance with applicable laws, codes and regulations. b. Design the Onsite Improvements consistent with the grade for the driveway access to the City Property mutually agreed to by the City's Director of Public Works and TVH's engineer and consistent with the scope and location described on Exhibit "B" hereto. The design and the construction of the Onsite Improvements will be in accordance with applicable laws, codes and regulations. The City will require that the contractor for the Onsite Improvements provide a performance and labor/materials bond for the Onsite Improvements. The City will also require that the contractor provide a one-year warranty bond for the Onsite Improvements. c. Obtain possession of all necessary rights of way for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. d. Obtain all necessary permits for the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements from the applicable public agencies. e. The City will be responsible for the payment of permit fees and the City inspections of the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. £ Designate a representative of the City to regularly meet with representatives of TVH to coordinate construction activities and monitor progress of construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. g. Prepare and maintain all invoices, records and reports relating to the costs for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements necessary to document the costs incurred in constructing said improvements. The City will permit representatives of TVH to review a copy said invoices, records and reports relating to the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements that document the costs incurred by the City in constructing said improvements on five business days written notice to the City. 5. TVH Obligations. a. Designate an engineer to work with the City's Director of Public Works to mutually set the grade for the driveway access to the City Property that will be work and accommodate future development on the TVH Property. b. Designate a representative of TVH to meet with the City in accordance with Paragraph 2 above about the draft specifications and plans for the Onsite Improvements. c. Designate a representative of TVH to regularly meet with the representatives of the City to coordinate construction activities and monitor progress of construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. d. Provide any necessary approvals and or rights of entry to authorize the City to enter on the TVH Property to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements. 6. Construction Right of Entry. TVH hereby grants to the City, its employees, agents, contractors, representatives, consultants and other designees ("City's Designees") a right of entry on the TVH Property for purposes of providing access to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements in accordance with this Agreement. TVH agrees and acknowledges that the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements may include tests, surveys and work of professional engineers, architects and soils experts and this Construction Right of Entry authorizes any such work that is necessary to construct the above improvements. The commencement date for this Construction Right of Entry is ten business days after the City provides written notice to TVH of its intent to enter the TVH Property for the uses authorized by this Agreement. This Construction Right of Entry terminates when the City files a Notice of Completion for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements or three years from the Effective Date of this Agreement, whichever is sooner. 7. No Liens. Except for the lien referenced under option (b) of Paragraph 3 above, the City agrees to keep the TVH Property free of any liens in connection with the City's construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and the Onsite Improvements, including without limitation, liens by contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, engineers, architects, surveyors or others that may have lien rights for work arising out of the City's use of portions of the TVH Property for said construction. If any such lien, except for the lien referenced under option (b) of Paragraph 3 above, is filed on TVH's Property in connection with the City's use of portions of the TVH Property to construct the Traffic Signal Improvements and the Onsite Improvements, the City will, at its sole cost and expense, have the lien released and discharged of record in a matter reasonably satisfactory to TVH within 45 calendar days of receiving notice of the lien. If the City fails to remove the lien within such 45 -day period, TVH will have the right to remove the lien, and City, upon demand, will reimburse TVH for all reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees incurred by TVH in connection with such removal. The City agrees that if TVH chooses to pay the Reimbursable Costs to the City under option (b) of Paragraph 3 above, the City will remove said lien within 15 calendar days of receiving payment from TVH of said Reimbursable Costs. 8. Indemnification. Notwithstanding the requirements of Paragraph 9 (Insurance), each party will indemnify, protect and hold harmless the other party, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature, including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, which the indemnified party, 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 other party's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the indemnified party's own negligence or wrongful conduct. 9. Insurance. Prior to entry onto the TVH Property for the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements, the City will cause the City's contractor for said improvements to procure and maintain a policy of commercial general liability insurance issued by an insurer reasonably satisfactory to the City against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work relating to the construction of the Traffic Signal Improvements and Onsite Improvements on the TVH Property. The contractor will be required to maintain said insurance policy with a single limit of liability of no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for all covered losses and four million dollars ($4,000,000) general aggregate. The City will cause said contractor to provide a certificate of insurance and copy of additional insured endorsement naming TVH, the City and the City's officers, employees and agents as additional insured, evidencing that such insurance is in force and effect. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. The City will cause its contractor to provide the certificate of coverage and a copy of additional insured endorsement to the City and TVH. The City will review and approve said endorsement before work commences. Such insurance will be maintained in force until such time as the City files a Notice of Completion for said improvements. The City will also require said contractor to procure and maintain insurance required on such construction projects, including, but not limited to, Automobile Liability, Employer's Liability, and Worker's Compensation Insurance. 10. Default. a. In the event one party claims that the other party has defaulted under its obligations under this Agreement, that party will notify the other party of the default in writing ("notice of default"). The party receiving the notice of default will cure the default within 15 business days of the date of the notice of default, unless the default cannot reasonably be cured within that time, in which case the party in default will commence the cure and will diligently prosecute the cure to completion. b. Except as provided in Subparagraph 10.c. below, each party will have all remedies provided by law for any uncured default under this Agreement. c. The sole remedy of TVH against the City in the event of a breach of this Agreement by City related to the completion or repair of Traffic Signal Improvements or Onsite Improvements will be specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, or similar remedies to compel City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement due to the nature of the City's obligations under this Agreement. City and TVH agree that damages may not be an adequate remedy if the City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that TVH's sole remedy will be the right to seek and obtain specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, or similar remedies to compel City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement as a remedy for any breach of this Agreement and that specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, or similar remedies to compel City's compliance with the terms of this Agreement are available remedies in the event TVH establishes City's breach of this Agreement. d. If the City fails to complete all reasonably required improvements on TVH's Property in accordance with its obligations hereunder, or to cure any default after required notice, TVH may complete or make reasonably required repairs and deduct the costs from the Reimbursable Costs owed upon completion. TVH also retains all legal rights and remedies to which it may be entitled against any contractor hired by the City or their insurers, or against the City for the breach of any other obligation under this Agreement. 11. Notices. All notices and demands will be given in writing by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, or by overnight carrier. Notices will be considered given upon the earlier of (a) two business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (b) one business day following deposit with an overnight carrier service. The Parties will address such notices as provided below or as may be amended by written notice: City: Copy to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Aaron Adams, City Manager Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney TVH Temecula Valley Hospitality c/o Fine Hospitality Group 640 W. Lambert Road Brea, California 92821 Attention: Ken Pansuria 12. Miscellaneous. a. Authority to Execute Agreement. The signatories to this Agreement are authorized to bind the respective party for which they are signing. b. No Joint Venture. No provision of this Access Easement will be deemed to constitute the City and TVH as partners, principal and agent, or joint venturers with one another. c. Exhibits. The Exhibits attached to this Agreement are attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. d. Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement will be effective only when duly executed by both the City and TVH. e. Applicable Law. This Agreement will be construed and interpreted under, and governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California. f Successors and Assigns. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. The Parties expressly agree and acknowledge that the obligations and rights under this Reimbursement Agreement may be assigned by the City and TVH to the successors in interest of the City Property and TVH Property, respectively. Such transfer and assignment of the City's obligations and rights under the Access Agreement to the successors in interest of the City Property shall not constitute an obligation by said successors in interest to construct a Park and Ride Lot on the City Property. Except as otherwise set forth herein, any future development of the City Property by any successors in interest will be subject to the applicable zoning and General Plan designations, and the terms of this Agreement. Any successors in interest of the City Property will designate an engineer to satisfy the duties of the City's Director of Public Works set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 above. g. Counterparts and Facsimile and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. For purposes of this Agreement, facsimile and electronic signatures will be deemed to be original signatures. h. Remedies Not Exclusive and Waivers. No remedy conferred by any of the specific provisions of this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy and each and every remedy will be cumulative and will be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. The election of any one or more remedies will not constitute a waiver of the right to pursue other available remedies. i. Interpretation and Construction. Each party has reviewed this Agreement and each has had the opportunity to have its respective counsel and/or real estate advisors review and revise this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party will not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits thereto. In this Agreement the neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and singular number includes the plural, and the words "person" and "party" include corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association wherever the context so requires. The Recitals and captions of the Paragraphs and Subparagraphs of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein will in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. �. Attorneys' Fees. If either party hereto incurs attorneys' fees in order to enforce, defend or interpret any of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement or because of a breach of this Agreement by the other party, the prevailing party, whether by suit, negotiation, arbitration or settlement, will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the other party. k. Severability. If any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining provisions will not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties will be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular part, term or provision held to be invalid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the dates set forth below: Temecula Valley Hospitality, LLC A California limited liability company Dated: , 2017 By: Title: City of Temecula, a municipal corporation Dated: Attest: , 2017 By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Exhibit "A" Description and Scope of Traffic Signal Improvements All work necessary to implement a four way traffic signal, including both vehicular and pedestrian movement indicators; including, but not limited to: Electrical service, traffic signal controller, traffic signal interconnection, traffic monitoring closed circuit camera(s) and pavement markings. Reconfigure the median to the immediate west of the intersection to accommodate an eastbound left turn pocket from Temecula Parkway to the driveway entering the TVH Property. Exhibit "B" Description, Scope and Rough Depiction of Location of Onsite Improvements All work necessary to implement a Portland cement concrete commercial driveway approach per City standards, and an asphalt concrete driveway of sufficient width to accommodate a vehicle lane in each direction that traverses the south westerly corner of the TVH Property, and provides sufficient turning radius to safely gain access to the abutting City Property at a location along the westerly property line abutting the City Property. Said construction will be consistent with the grade for the driveway access to the Park and Ride Lot mutually set by the City's Director of Public Works and TVH's engineer to work with and accommodate future development on TVH's Property. General items of work will include grading, paving, and storm drain improvements necessary to control storm water run-off and erosion/sediment control. Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to a Three -Year Agreement with Counts Unlimited, Inc. for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer 11 - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to a Three - Year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc., in the amount of $20,000, for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Year 2017-18 BACKGROUND: Counts Unlimited, Inc. provides Citywide traffic count data collection services, including collection of vehicular volume data for the City's Annual Traffic Count Program, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, and collection of peak hour turning movement count data used for evaluating intersection performance at signalized intersections. Due to increased volume of requested data collection services, additional funds are needed to continue services through the end of fiscal year 2017-18. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for the request increase of $20,000, for a total Agreement amount $110,000. ATTACHMENT: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. CITYWIDE TRAFFIC COUNT DATA COLLECTION THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of December 12, 2017, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Counts Unlimited, Inc. a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). 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 25, 2017, the City and Contractor entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Contractor Services," in the amount of $30,000 annually, for a total agreement amount of $90,000. b. The parties now desire to increase the payment in the amount of $20,000 for fiscal year 2017-18, for a total agreement amount of $110,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Contractor 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 Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) for additional Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for a total Agreement amount of One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000). 3. 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 COUNTS UNLIMITED, 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: Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Abe Campos, Vice President Kris Campos, Secretary/Treasurer Counts Unlimited, Inc. Attn: Kris Campos P.O. Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (9510 268-6268, ext. 802 counts@countsunlimited.com 2 PM Initials: Date: (- Item No. 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Szer- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer December 12, 2017 Amend the Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 to Add the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect, PW08-04, as a Standalone Project, and Remove the Project from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide Project Budget PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Civil Engineer Nino Abad, Associate Civil Engineer That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-22 TO ADD THE SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT, PW08-04, AS A STANDALONE PROJECT, AND REMOVE THE PROJECT FROM THE BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM — CITYWIDE PROJECT BUDGET BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April of 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. As part of SB 1 (SEC.36), one hundred million dollars is allocated for the Active Transportation Program (ATP). These types of projects generally promote construction of facilities for non -motorized modes of transportation. In June 2016, City staff applied for federal ATP funds as part of the ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects for funding of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project. The project was not funded as part of that grant cycle. On June 13, 2017, the City Council approved the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22. The CIP budget included the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect as part of the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide project. The majority of funding, especially the one pertaining to construction, was not specified and were designated to later years until a funding source could be identified in the future. On June 30, 2017, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) published a "Call for Projects" for ATP Augmentation with the purpose of using State SB 1 funds for projects that were just outside the cutoff for funding during the ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects. Staff subsequently submitted an application for ATP Augmentation funding through SB 1. On August 31, 2017 staff was notified by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) staff that the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project is being recommended to receive SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding. At their October 18, 2017 meeting, the CTC adopted the 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation approving their staff recommendations to include this project. The funding was allocated by the CTC at their December 6, 2017 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The amendment of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide for Fiscal Years 2018-22 will remove the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension project from the Citywide project. This includes the removal of: • $402,353 of Actual Expenditures that were previously expended on the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension Project; • $566,075 of AB 2766 funds in Fiscal Year 2021-22; • $3,330,425 in Unspecified Funds in Fiscal Year 2021-22; and, • $347,634 ($147,434.00 from the Santa Gertrudis Component and $200,000.00 from the Bike Lane and Trail Program) in DIF—Open Space and Trails in Fiscal Year Ending 2017 Carryover. The amendment to the CIP Budget will then create a new standalone project for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension Project, PW 08-04. In addition to the actual expenditures from previous years, the costs to complete the project will be funded by: • $347,634 of DIF - Open Space and Trails in Fiscal Year Ending 2017 Carryover from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide; • $189,000 of SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding in Fiscal Year 2017-18; • $3,570,000 in SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding in Fiscal Year 2018-19; • $119,556 of Measure S funds transferred from unused fund balance from the Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park Synthetic Turf Replacement in account 210-190-119 in Fiscal Year 2017-18; and, • $262,810 of Measure S funds transferred from the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive project in account 210-165-648 in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive project will not be affected by the transfer of Measure S funds as those funds are being replaced with Highway Bridge Replacement Program Funds and will be reflected in an updated project sheet during the Fiscal Year 2018-19 CIP budget preparation and approval process. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Current CIP Budget Project Sheets for the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide Project RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-22 TO ADD THE SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT, PW08-04, AS A STANDALONE PROJECT, AND REMOVE THE PROJECT FROM THE BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM — CITYWIDE PROJECT BUDGET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. B. SB 1 includes augmentation funding for projects not funded through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 call for projects. C. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) staff recommended $4,082,000 of SB 1 ATP Augmentation funding for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project in the City of Temecula. D. The CTC adopted the 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation approving staff recommendations on October 18, 2017. E. The CTC approved the project funding recommendations of the SB 1 ATP Augmentation on December 6, 2017. F. The City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 lists the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect project (Project) with several other projects as part of the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide. G. Removing the Project from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide, and establishing a standalone budget for the Project, is necessary for project implementation with SB 1 ATP Augmentation funds. H. The Capital Improvement Program, as amended by this Resolution, is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and each element thereof. Section 2. Amendment of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget A. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 is hereby amended to remove the Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect from the Bike Lane and Trail Program — Citywide, by replacement of the current Project Sheets with the Amended Project Sheets attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22 is hereby amended to incorporate The Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project as a standalone project, by adding the Project Sheets attached hereto as Exhibit B. C. A fund transfer of $119,556 from account 210-190-119 to the Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project is hereby approved in Fiscal Year 2017-18. D. A fund transfer of $262,810 from account 210-165-648 to the Santa Gertrudis Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect Project is hereby approved in Fiscal Year 2018-19. Section 3. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project (REVISED BY AMENDMENT 12/12/2017) Bike Lane and Trail Program Bike Lane and Trail Program • Bike Pump Track 1 Lake Skinner Trail Rancho California Bicycle Lane and Cycle Track 6 Temecula Creek South Trail Cost to Complete Year Funding Source $ 101,863 2017-18 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 20,000 2017-18 Beyond Grant $ 110,000 2019-20 Unspecified $ 150,000 2020-21 Unspecified $ 153,000 2017-18 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 60,000 2017-18 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 50,000 2018-19 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 1,000,000 2018-22 Measure S $ 905,000 2021-22 Unspecified $ 240,000 2018-19 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 1,050,000 2021-22 Unspecified r Yukon to Ynez $ 200,000 2018-19 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 86,105 2021-22 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 606,895 2021-22 Unspecified Multi -Use Trail- Margarita Road Undercrossing $ 300,000 2021-22 Senate Bill 821 $ 1,549,300 2021-22 Unspecified $ 6,582,163 ofill Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project [REVISED BY AMMENDMENT 12/12/17] Project Description: The Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The Master Plan includes new and potential trail and bikeway segment information sheets that detail constraints, solutions, surface types and widths, and estimated construction costs. The plan also details multiple recommendations including, but not limited to: new signs, gates, fence openings, sharrows, green paint, bike boxes, separated bikeways, bicycle boulevards, striping, maps, bike racks, fix -it stations, bike shares, bike corrals, bike lockers, cycle tracks, rapid flashing beacons, crossings, bicycle detection and actuation at signalized intersections, pedestrian and bicycle counts, access and maintenance agreements, and trailheads. The City is a Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community and this program is intended to allow for continued implementation of facilities and programs, which further the City's commitment to proving a safe and convenient network that connects schools, parks, open space, shopping, and employment centers. Benefit / Core Value: This project provides alternative modes of transportation and increases connectivity and accessibility to Old Town, Wine Country, and the City's many schools, parks, trails, and open space areas. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values of A Sustainable City and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and includes a list of capital improvements throughout the City. Improvements will be made on an ongoing basis as funding becomes available. Department: Planning / Public Works / Temecula Community Services - Account No. 210.165.703 Level: Project Cost: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 2017-18 Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22 Projected and Total Project Future Years Cost Administration $ - $ 20,000 $ 58,000 $140,000 $ 313,525 $ 531,525 Construction $ 11,338 $ 69,720 $ 150,000 $600,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 3,690,075 $ 5,281,133 Construction $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 Engineering $ 104,400 $ 104,400 Design/Environmental $ 135,001 $ 12,143 $ 25,000 $ 110,000 $150,000 $ 485,800 $ 657,944 MSHCP $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 73,500 $ 73,500 Utilities $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 4,747,300 $ 6,728,502 Source of Funds: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 Carryover Budget 2017-18 Adopted 2018-19 Appropriation Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22 Projected Total Project Cost BEYOND Grant DIF (Open Space and $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Trails) $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 213,000 $490,000 $ 86,105 $ 1,037,307 Measure S $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 Senate Bill 821 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Unspecified* $ 110,000 $150,000 $ 4,111,195 $ 4,371,195 Total Funding: $ 146,339 $ 101,863 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 4,747,300 $ 6,728,502 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 1 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 1 *Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identified 2018-19 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT Infrastructure / Other Project [REVISED BY AMENDMENT 12/12/17] Project Description: This project includes planning and preliminary engineering for the extension and interconnect of the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail from Ynez Road to the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail. The extension and interconnect will provide access and under -crossings at Ynez Road, Interstate 15 and Jefferson Avenue, and a continuous paved trail along the Santa Gertrudis Creek to interconnect with the Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail. Benefit / Core Value: This project provides additional pedestrian and bicycle trails for the community. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The project is currently in the design phase and will be constructed in future years when funding is available. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.739 Level: III Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2021-22 2019-20 2020-21 Projected and Total Project Projected Projected Future Years Cost Administration $ 130,431 $ 105,634 $ 70,366 $ 262,810 $ - $ 569,241 Construction $ 223,311 $3,364,400 $ - $ 3,364,400 Construction Engineering $ 78,920 $ 45,600 $ - $ 45,600 Design $ 271,922 $ 142,000 $ 413,922 Environmental $ 100,000 $ 238,190 $ 262,810 $ 338,190 ROW $ 189,000 $3,570,000 $ - $ 3,759,000 MSHCP $ 402,353 $ 347,634 $ 308,556 $ 160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 160,000 Totals $ 402,353 $ 347,634 $ 308,556 $3,832,810 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,891,353 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 2020-21 Projected Projected 2021-22 Projected Total Project Cost AB 2766 $ 58,683 $ - $ 58,683 BTA(1) $ 223,311 $ 223,311 General Fund Contributions $ 78,920 $ 78,920 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 41,439 $ 347,634 $ 389,073 Measure S $ 119,556 $ 262,810 $ 382,366 SB1 ATP Augmentation (z) $ 189,000 $3,570,000 $ - $ 3,759,000 Total Funding: $ 402,353 $ 347,634 $ 308,556 $3,832,810 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,891,353 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2017-18 2019-20 2021-22 (1) Bicycle Transportation Account (2) California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the 2017 Active Trasnportation Program Augmentation on October 18,2017 and allocated the funds on their December 6, 2017 meeting ADDED BY AMENDMENT 12/12/2017. SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRAIL EXTENSION AND INTERCONNECT Infrastructure / Other Projects Location Aerial Data - March 2010 0 400 800 Feet 1,600 The Heart of Sauthc+n California Wine Country Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project Bike Lane and Trail Program Bike Lane and Trail Program Cost to Complete Year Funding Source DIF (Open Space and $ 301,863 2017-18 Trails) $ 20,000 2017-18 Beyond Grant DIF (Open Space and $ 110,000 2019-20 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 150,000 2020-21 Trails) Bike Pump Track Lake Skinner Trail DIF (Open Space and $ 153,000 2017-18 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 60,000 2017-18 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 50,000 2018-19 Trails) $ 1,000,000 2018-22 Measure S Rancho California Bicycle Lane and Cycle Track $ 905,000 2021-22 Unspecified Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect $ 566,075 2021-22 AB2766 DIF (Open Space and $ 147,634 2017-18 Trails) Temecula Creek South Trail Yukon to Ynez $ 3,330,425 2021-22 Unspecified DIF (Open Space and $ 240,000 2018-19 Trails) $ 1,050,000 2021-22 Unspecified DIF (Open Space and $ 200,000 2018-19 Trails) DIF (Open Space and $ 113,105 2021-22 Trails) $ 606,895 2021-22 Unspecified Multi -Use Trail- Margarita Road Undercrossing $ 300,000 2021-22 Senate Bill 821 $ 1,549,300 2021-22 Unspecified $ 10,853,297 Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 86 2018-19 $ 35,000 2020-21 $ 35,000 C if;"; Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 BIKE LANE AND TRAIL PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: The Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The Master Plan includes new and potential trail and bikeway segment information sheets that detail constraints, solutions, surface types and widths, and estimated construction costs. The plan also details multiple recommendations including, but not limited to: new signs, gates, fence openings, sharrows, green paint, bike boxes, separated bikeways, bicycle boulevards, striping, maps, bike racks, fix -it stations, bike shares, bike corrals, bike lockers, cycle tracks, rapid flashing beacons, crossings, bicycle detection and actuation at signalized intersections, pedestrian and bicycle counts, access and maintenance agreements, and trailheads. The City is a Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community and this program is intended to allow for continued implementation of facilities and programs, which further the City's commitment to proving a safe and convenient network that connects schools, parks, open space, shopping, and employment centers. Benefit/ Core Value: This project provides alternative modes of transportation and increases connectivity and accessibility to Old Town, Wine Country, and the City's many schools, parks, trails, and open space areas. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values ofA Sustainable City and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The Master Plan was completed in Fiscal Year 2015-16 and includes a list of capital improvements throughout the City. Improvements will be made on an ongoing basis as funding becomes available. Department: Planning / Public Works / Temecula Community SenAces - Account No. 210.165.703 Level: Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 2021-22 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Projected and Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Future Years Cost Administration $ 130,431 $ 32,565 $ 58,000 $140,000 $ 719,600 $ 1,080,596 Construction $ 11,338 $ 269,720 $ 150,000 $600,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 7,047,500 $ 8,838,558 Construction $ 223,311 $ 223,311 Engineering $ 104,400 $ 104,400 Design/Environmental $ 406,923 $ 147,212 $ 25,000 $490,000 $ 485,800 $ 1,064,935 MSHCP $ 78,920 $ 233,500 $ 233,500 Utilities $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $ 548,692 $ 449,497 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 8,670,800 $ 11,401,989 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Project Cost AB 2766 $ 58,683 $ 566,075 $ 624,758 BEYOND Grant $ 20,000 $ 20,000 BTA(1) $ 223,311 $ 223,311 DIF (Open Space and Trails) $ 187,778 $ 449,497 $ 213,000 $490,000 $ 86,105 $ 1,426,380 General Fund $ 78,920 $ 78,920 Measure S $250,000 $ 250,000 $250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 Senate Bill 821 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Unspecified' $ 110,000 $ 150,000 $ 7,468,620 $ 7,728,620 Total Funding: $ 548,692 $ 449,497 $ 233,000 $740,000 $ 360,000 $400,000 $ 8,670,800 $ 11,401,989 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2017-18 *Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identified 2019-20 $ 35,000 2021-22 $ 35,000 Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 87 Item No. 14 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16 PREPARED BY: Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Civil Engineer William Becerra, Associate Engineer 11 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Plans and Specifications, and Authorize the Department of Public Works to Solicit Construction Bids for the Sidewalks — Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PW17-16; 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND: The Sidewalks - Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement Project will replace existing boardwalk planks throughout Old Town Temecula, with colored, stamped concrete consistent with the materials and finish of sidewalks at the approaches to the new Main Street Bridge. Some of the existing concrete sidewalks (San Diego Buff) will be replaced for continuity and consistency. Where practical, the improved sidewalk widths will be expanded and trees with cast iron grates installed for consistency with the Old Town Specific Plan. The project improvements will be made on Front Street, Main Street, Sixth Street, and Mercedes Street. This project satisfies the City's Core Values of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. This project is exempt from the CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 states that the repair, maintenance, and minor alteration of existing highways and streets are Class 1 activities, which is exempt from CEQA. Project plans and specifications are complete and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the office of the Director of Public Works. The Engineer's Estimate is $700,000, and the number of allowable working days is fifty, which is ten weeks. FISCAL IMPACT: The Sidewalks - Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CI P) budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22, and is funded with Community Development Block Grant and Measure S Funds. At the November 14, 2017, the City Council approved the Draft Substantial Amendments to the Fiscal Years 2012-2013, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plans and the Fiscal Year 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan and Funding Recommendation. The amendment included a transfer of $261,516.25 from the Sam Hicks Monument Park Project to the Old Town Boardwalk Enhancement Project. With this transfer, adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Description 2 Project Location Map 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 - SIDEWALKS - OLD TOWN BOARDWALK ENHANCEMENT Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: This project will establish programs that will remove boardwalk plank boards and replace them with colored concrete sidewalks (San Diego buff colors) stamped with wood grain finish similar to what was installed with the new Main Street bridge. Benefit / Core Value: This project promotes a sustainable walkable surface that will require little maintenance. It will also promote a "walkable" community by connecting the City. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: This project will start in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.696 Level: II Project Cost: Prior Years FYE2017 Actual Carryover Expenditures Budget 2021-22 2017-18 Projected Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 and Future Total Project Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Years Cost Administration $ 50,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 90,000 Construction $ 280,000 $160,000 $140,000 $ 580,000 Construction Engineering $ 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 100,000 Design/Environmental $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Totals $ - $ - $ 450,000 $ - $ 200.000 $ - $200.000 $ 850,000 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost CDBGi1 Measure S $ 150,000 300.000 $200,000 $ 200.000 $ 150,000 $ 700,000 Total Funding; $ 450,000 $200,000 $ 200.000 $ 850.000 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2017-18 (1) Conmmity Development Block Grant- Action Ran Fiscal Year 2017-18 Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 131 w E ci coct i W co L co co c O 1— r r.- 0 f: Of:_ Item No. 15 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Establish an All -Way Stop Control at the Intersections of Temeku Drive and Pin Way/Legends Golf Club Driveway, and Temeku Drive and Gleneagles Drive PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer II - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TEMEKU DRIVE AND PIN WAY/LEGENDS GOLF CLUB DRIVEWAY, AND TEMEKU DRIVE AND GLENEAGLES DRIVE BACKGROUND: A request was received from Temeku Hills residents to consider the feasibility of implementing multi -way stop signs at nine intersections located on Temeku Drive to reduce vehicular speeds and provide right of way assignment as follows: 1. Par Way 2. Pin Way/Legends Golf Club (LGC) Driveway 3. Royal Birkdale Drive 4. Inverness Court/Flag Way 5. Gleneagle Drive 6. Firestone Street 7. Sunningdale Drive 8. Congressional Drive/Berkshire Lane 9. Oakhill Drive Following a review of conditions, staff determined that only five of the requested intersections had roadway characteristics that made the intersection a potential candidate for right-of-way assignment provided by multi -way stop controls. The roadway characteristics considered by staff included the entering street extends longer than 600 feet, the entering street has multiple points of access and serves as through street, and access points serve high traffic generator. The five intersections evaluated are as follows: 1. Pin Way/Legends Golf Club (LGC) Driveway 2. Royal Birkdale Drive 3. Gleneagle Drive 4. Firestone Street 5. Sunningdale Drive In August 2017, vehicular speed and volume data was collected along Temeku Drive at the five intersections listed above. In addition to the data collection, staff performed a review of the collision history and completion of a multi -way stop warrant analysis. The multi -way stop warrant analysis performed found that existing volumes fall below the minimum thresholds and multi -way stop signs are not justified at the intersections. However, the Multi -Way Stop Sign Installation Policy for Residential Streets provides the flexibility to consider multi -way stop signs at locations where there is a need to provide right-of-way control to eliminate conflicts between vehicles due to visibility constraints. An evaluation of the intersection sight distance criteria indicates there is justification for multi -way stop signs at the following intersections on Temeku Drive: 1. Pin Way/Legends Golf Club (LGC) Driveway 2. Gleneagle Drive The results of the warrant analysis were presented at the Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting on October 26, 2017. The Commission approved the recommendation (4-0-1) that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing all -way stop controls at the two intersections listed above. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for the installation of signs and associated pavement markings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROLS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TEMEKU DRIVE AND PIN WAY/LEGENDS GOLF CLUB DRIVEWAY, AND TEMECULA DRIVE AND GLENEAGLES DRIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for stop signs at the locations described in this resolution. A. The City Council hereby finds and determines the installation of stop signs pursuant to this resolution will enhance public health, safety and general welfare at the intersections. B. The City Council hereby finds the proposed stop signs will not create any adverse conditions in the area. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100 of the Temecula Municipal Code, the following All -Way Stop Intersections are hereby established in the City of Temecula. Temeku Drive and Pin Way/Legends Golf Club Driveway Temeku Drive and Gleneagles Drive PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. Maryann Edwards, 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. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 711E CITY 01 TEMECULA ,.141 r. NY, 14 pee. LOCATION MAP 626.7 0 313.34 626.7 Feet WGS_1984_ Web_ Mercator_ Auxiliary_ Sphere © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Parcels Highways . HWY ▪ INTERCHANGE ▪ INTERSTATE - OFFRAMP - ONRAMP USHWY Street Names Parks Schools Hospitals Public Facilities City of Temecula Boundary Sphere of Influence Streets <all other values> <Null> COLLECTOR FREEWAY LIMITED SECONDARY ARTERIAL LOCAL MAJOR ARTERIAL MODIFIED SECONDARY ARTERI, NO CLASSIFCATION ASSIGNED Notes TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT Item No. 16 ACTION MINUTES November 28, 2017 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:30 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar (Absent), Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 8 Approve the Action Minutes of November 14, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Nagger Absent); Motion by Rahn, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Edwards, Rahn, Stewart and Comerchero with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 14, 2017. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:33 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 12, 2017, for an adjourned regular session commencing at 3:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 112817 1 Item No. 17 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Temecula Community Services District Cumulative Purchase of Miscellaneous Goods, Supplies and Equipment Anticipated to Exceed $30,000 Per Vendor for Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the purchase of miscellaneous consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment from the following vendors for Fiscal Year 2017-18: Vendor FY 17-18 Amount Description of Purchases Amazon $45,000 Library Books, Goods, Supplies and Equipment for TCSD Programs and Events Costco $45,000 Goods and Supplies for TCSD Programs and Events BACKGROUND: Pursuant to TCSD Resolution No. 15-04, any purchase of consumable and durable goods, supplies and equipment in excess of $30,000 requires the Board of Director's action. Throughout each year, various departments within TCSD purchase goods, 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 Director's authorize the cumulative purchase of miscellaneous goods, supplies and equipment for Fiscal Year 2017-18 from the vendors as indicated above. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are programmed in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 operating budgets for affected departments. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 18 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERIVCES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Isaac Garibay, Human Resources Manager DATE: December 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Receive and File the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to Include Minimum Wage Adjustments Effective January 1, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Receive and file the City of Temecula Amended Salary Schedule to be Effective January 1, 2018; 2. Appropriate $102,078 from the Temecula Community Services District available fund balance. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the State of California issued a Minimum Wage Order (MW -2017), which mandates that all employers, including the City of Temecula, pay employees hourly wages not less than $11.00 per hour beginning January 1, 2018. As a result, those pay ranges that fall below $11.00 per hour were studied along with related job classifications to bring all pay ranges into compliance while maintaining internal equity differentials within each classification family. Salary range adjustments were made to the following classifications: • Intern • Office Aide 111 • Office Aide II • Office Aide I • Senior Recreation Leader • Recreation Leader • Recreation Assistant • Day Camp Director • Assistant Day Camp Director • Video Production Specialist • Lifeguard • Senior Lifeguard • Lead Lifeguard Additionally, several Project Classifications will be eliminated because they are obsolete, or redundant of updated classifications in the Classification Plan adopted by the City Council on March 25, 2014. As a result, several employees whose classifications will be eliminated will need to be reclassified into a comparable classification from the new Classification Plan, which also will result in pay adjustments. No salary or benefit adjustments were made to Executive, Mid Management, or staff represented by Teamsters Local 911. FISCAL IMPACT: It is difficult to predict the exact fiscal impact of project employment wages due to the nature of the work. Project employment positions have high turnover because they are temporary in nature. Employees often leave project positions for full-time, benefitted opportunities, and sometimes the positions are seasonal by design (e.g. Lifeguards). Although it is unlikely, assuming all project positions are filled for the rest of Fiscal Year 2017-2018, the maximum Citywide fiscal impact would be $160,557, of which $102,078 is from the Temecula Community Services District. ATTACHMENTS: Salary Schedule CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/Title Level ADMINISTRATIVE Salary Steps 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 MCP 7.0 Only 7.5 8.0 Executive 4 29.1324 29.8635 30.6105 31.3733 32.1595 32.9616 33.7872 34.6286 35.4934 36.3820 37.2941 38.0961 39.0475 40.0226 41.0212 Assistant (Y -Rate) 5,049.6100 5,176.3400 5,305.8200 5,438.0300 5,574.3200 5,713.3400 5,856.4500 6,002.2900 6,152.1900 6,306.2100 6,464.3100 6,603.3300 6,768.2300 6,937.2500 7,110.3400 60,595.32 62,116.08 63,669.84 65,256.36 66,891.84 68,560.08 70,277.40 72,027.48 73,826.28 75,674.52 77,571.72 79,239.96 81,218.76 83,247.00 85,324.08 Executive 4 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Assistant 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Senior 4 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 Ad m inistrative Assistant 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Administrative 3 22.0478 22.5981 23.1642 23.7462 24.3437 24.9491 25.5704 26.2073 26.8600 27.5282 28.2202 Assistant (Y -Rate) 3,821.6200 3,917.0000 4,015.1300 4,116.0100 4,219.5800 4,324.5100 4,432.2000 4,542.6000 4,655.7300 4,771.5500 4,891.5000 45,859.44 47,004.00 48,181.56 49,392.12 50,634.96 51,894.12 53,186.40 54,511.20 55,868.76 57,258.60 58,698.00 Administrative 3 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 Assistant 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Senior 2 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Off ice 5pec ia Iist 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Off ice 5pec ia Iist 11 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Off ice 5pec ia Iist l 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 Off ice Aide 111 1 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 Off ice Aide 11 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Office Aide 1 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 Page 1 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level ANALYST Salary Steps 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 ■ 5.5 6.0 6.5 I. Principal 7 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 Management Analyst 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Senior5 38.9454 39.9203 40.9190 41.9228 42.9868 44.0642 45.1649 46.2972 47.4530 48.6403 49.8591 50.9285 52.2022 53.5075 54.8442 Management Analyst 6,750.5300 6,919.5200 7,092.6200 7,266.6200 7,451.0400 7,637.7900 7,828.5900 8,024.8400 8,225.1900 8,430.9900 8,642.2400 8,827.6000 9,048.3800 9,274.6400 9,506.3300 (Y -Rate) 81,006.36 83,034.24 85,111.44 87,199.44 89,412.48 91,653.48 93,943.08 96,298.08 98,702.28 101,171.88 103,706.88 105,931.20 108,580.56 111,295.68 114,075.96 Senior5 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 Management Analyst 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 Management Analyst 5 35.2576 36.1382 37.0424 37.9703 38.9218 39.8967 40.8954 41.9176 42.9633 44.0405 45.1413 46.1085 47.2644 48.4437 49.6546 (Y -Rate) 6,111.3200 6,263.9600 6,420.6900 6,581.5100 6,746.4400 6,915.4200 7,088.5300 7,265.7100 7,446.9700 7,633.6900 7,824.5000 7,992.1400 8,192.5000 8,396.9100 8,606.8000 73,335.84 75,167.52 77,048.28 78,978.12 80,957.28 82,985.04 85,062.36 87,188.52 89,363.64 91,604.28 93,894.00 95,905.68 98,310.00 100,762.92 103,281.60 Management Analyst 5 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Management Assistant 4 28.0866 28.7863 29.5097 30.2488 31.0038 31.7822 32.5764 33.3940 34.2275 35.0846 35.9652 (Y -Rate) 4,868.3400 4,989.6300 5,115.0200 5,243.1300 5,373.9900 5,508.9100 5,646.5700 5,788.2900 5,932.7700 6,081.3300 6,233.9700 58,420.08 59,875.56 61,380.24 62,917.56 64,487.88 66,106.92 67,758.84 69,459.48 71,193.24 72,975.96 74,807.64 Management Assistant 4 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Management Aide III3 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Management Aide II2 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 Management Aide I 1 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 Intern 1 11.0197 11.2952 11.5775 11.8670 12.1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161.0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932.92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director ofs 63.6155 65.21 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Development 11,026.69 11,302.36 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 16 5,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING & SAFETY Building Official 7 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Field Supervisor - Building 4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Plan Checker4 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Senior Building Inspector 3 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 Building Inspector 11 2 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Building Inspector l 1 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Page 2 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level Salary Steps COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- CODE ENFORCEMENT ■ ■ Field Supervisor -4 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 Code Enforcement 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Senior Code 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Enforcement Officer 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55. 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Code Enforcement Officer 11 2 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Code Enforcement Officer l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING Planning Manager7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Principal Planner5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Senior Planner 5 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 Associate Planner 11 4 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Associate Planner 1 3 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Assistant Planner 2 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Planning Technician 1 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - SERVICES 1_ CommDev Processinga 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 Supervisor 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Senior CommDev 3 29.3131 30.0445 30.7993 31.5699 32.3562 33.1660 33.9916 34.8408 35.7136 36.6100 37.5220 Services Technician 5,080.9400 5,207.7100 5,338.5400 5,472.1100 5,608.4000 5,748.7800 5,891.8800 6,039.0800 6,190.3600 6,345.7300 6,503.8200 (Y -Rate) 60,971.28 62,492.52 64,062.48 65,665.32 67,300.80 68,985.36 70,702.56 72,468.96 74,284.32 76,148.76 78,045.84 Senior CommDev 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 Services Technician 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Com mDev Services 2 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 Technician 11 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Com mDev Services 1 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 Technician 1 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 Page 3 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level CITY CLERK Salary Steps Abu MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5'! 7.0 7.5 8.0 City Clerks 52.2572 53.5625 54.8993 56.2753 57.6827 59.1216 60.5999 62.1174 _ 63.6665 65.2548 66.8825 68.5529 70.2686 72.0281 73.5738 (Y-R8te) 9,057.9200 9,284.1700 9,515.8700 9,754.3800 9,998.3400 10,247.7400 10,503.9800 10,767.0100 11,035.5300 11,310.8400 11,592.9600 11,882.5100 12,179.8900 12,484.8700 12,752.7900 108,695.04 111,410.04 114,190.44 117,052.56 119,980.08 122,972.88 126,047.76 129,204.12 132,426.36 13 5,730.08 139,115.52 142, 590.12 146,158.68 149,818.44 153,033.48 City Clerks 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 103,368.43 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,9 51.89 119,87 5.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 Deputy City Clerk7 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Records Manager 6 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Records Supervisor4 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Senior 3 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Records Coordinator 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Records Coordinator 2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Records Technician 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 CITY MANAGER City Manager8 111.42 (per Employment Contract) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19,312.50 231,750.00 Assistant City Manager8 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 94.4376 96.7986 99.2185 101.6990 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9 562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15, 580.4302 15,969.9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 17,197.8797 17,627.8267 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 196,430.27 201,341.03 206,374.56 211,533.92 Deputy City Manager7 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 11,302.3616 11, 584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,47 5.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9 562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15, 580.4302 15,969.9410 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,9 56.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 Assistant to the 6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 City Manager 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 Economic Development5 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 Manager 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 Video Production 3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 Specialist 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0261 5,661.1018 5,802.6293 5,947.6951 6,096.3874 6,248.7971 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2710 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Page 4 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level COMMUNITY SERVICES Salary Steps dab MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 M! 7.0 7.5 8.0 Director of 8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 Community Services 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 16 5,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Asst Director of 7 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 Community Services 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 Community Services5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Superintendent 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Community Services5 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Manager 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 Community Servicesa 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 Supervisor 11 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Community Servicesa 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Supervisor l 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Community Services3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Community Services3 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 Coordinator l 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Community Services2 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 Specialist 11 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 Community Services2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist l 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Community Services 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 Senior Recreation Leader 1 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Recreation Leader 1 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 Recreation Assistant 1 11.0197 11.2952 11.5775 11.8670 12.1637 12.4678 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 1,910.0770 1,957.8290 2,006.7747 2,056.9441 2,108.3677 2,161.0769 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 22,920.92 23,493.95 24,081.30 24,683.33 25,300.41 25,932.92 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 COMMUNITY SERVICES -AQUATICS Aquatics Supervisor IIa 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Aquatics Supervisor la 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Aquatics Coordinator 3 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 Lead Lifeguard2 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Senior Lifeguard 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 Lifeguard 1 12.7794 13.0989 13.4264 13.7621 14.1061 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 2,215.1038 2,270.4814 2,327.2434 2,385.4245 2,445.0601 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 26,581.25 27,245.78 27,926.92 28,625.09 29,340.72 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 Pag 5of12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level COMMUNITY SERVICES - DAY CAMP Salary Steps ° CP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Day Camp Director 1 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Assistant Day Camp 1 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 Director 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1307 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 COMMUNITY SERVICES - PARK RANGERS Supervising Park Ranger4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Park Ranger III3 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Park Ranger II2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 Park Ranger! 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 COMMUNITY SERVICES -THEATER ■ Theater Technical 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Coordinator 11 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Theater Technical 3 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 Coordinator! 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 Theater Technical 2 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 Specialist!! 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 Theater Technical 2 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 Specialist! 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Theater Technical 1 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 Assistant 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 FINANCE Director of Finance 8 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11, 584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15, 580.4302 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 16 5,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 Assistant Director 7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 of Finance 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,9 51.89 119,87 5.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 Fiscal Services Manager 6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 FINANCE -ACCOUNTING Senior Accountant 4 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 Accountant!! 3 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 Accountant! 3 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Page 6 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level FINANCE -ACCOUNTING SUPPORT Salary Steps .. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 , ! 7.0 7.5 8(Y Accounting Support4 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 Supervisor 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Senior Accounting3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 Technician 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Accounting Technician!! 2 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Accounting Technician!2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Accounting Assistant 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Cashier 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FINANCE - BUSINESS LICENSE Business License 4 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 Supervisor 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 Senior Business License 3 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Technician 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Business License 2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 Technician 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Business License 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 Assistant 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FINANCE - PAYROLL Payroll Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Payroll Administrator4 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Payroll Supervisor4 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 Senior Payroll3 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 Coordinator 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 Payroll Coordinator 2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Payroll Technician 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Page 7 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level FINANCE -PURCHASING Salary Steps ....'."+. w 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 M! 7.0 7.5 84) Purchasing Manager5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Purchasing Supervisora 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Senior Buyer3 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 Buyer II2 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 Buyer2 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Purchasing Assistant 1 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 FIRE Field Supervisor -Firea 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 Senior Fire Inspectora 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Fire Inspector II2 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 Fire Inspector I 1 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Page 8 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level HUMAN RESOURCES ■ Salary Steps _ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 I MCP 1 7.0 Only 7.5 8.0 Director of HR/Risk 8 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Management 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Asst Director of HR/Risk 7 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 Management 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,9 51.89 119,87 5.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 13 5,628.34 139,019.05 HR Manager6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 Risk Manager 6 43.5058 44.5910 45.7074 46.8476 48.0192 49.2222 50.4568 51.7148 53.0042 54.3332 55.6934 56.8887 58.3118 59.7664 61.2603 (Y -Rate) 7,541.0000 7,729.1000 7,922.6200 8,120.2500 8,323.3200 8,531.8500 8,745.8400 8,963.9000 9,187.4000 9,417.7500 9,653.5300 9,860.7000 10,107.3700 10,359.5100 10,618.4600 90,492.00 92,749.20 95,071.44 97,443.00 99,879.84 102,382.20 104,950.08 107,566.80 110,248.80 113,013.00 115,842.36 118,328.40 121,288.44 124,314.12 127,421.52 Risk Manager 6 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 HR Supervisora 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior HR Technician 3 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 HR Technician 11 2 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 HR Technician 1 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 HR Assistant 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Director of lT/Support8 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 Services 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Asst Director of IT/Support7 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 Services 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 105,9 52.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 IT Manager6 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 IT Administrator 5 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 IT supervisora 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 Senior IT specialist3 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 IT specialist 112 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 IT Specialist 12 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 IT Technician 11 1 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 IT Technician 1 1 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Pag 9of12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level Salary Steps Abu MCP Only 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 Mr 7.0 7.5 8.0 PUBLIC WORKS Director of PW/City 8 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 85.5558 87.6947 89.8871 92.1343 94.4376 96.7986 Engineer 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 14,829.6778 15,200.4198 15,580.4302 15,969.9410 16,369.1895 16,778.4193 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161,219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 177,956.13 182,405.04 186,965.16 191,639.29 196,430.27 201,341.03 PUBLIC WORKS - CUSTODIAL Custodian II 2 16.5044 16.9133 17.3378 17.7704 18.2185 18.6746 19.1386 19.6181 20.1057 20.6088 21.1279 (Y -Rate) 2,860.7600 2,931.6400 3,005.2200 3,080.2000 3,157.8700 3,236.9300 3,317.3500 3,400.4700 3,484.9800 3,572.1900 3,662.1700 34,329.12 35,179.68 36,062.64 36,962.40 37,894.44 38,843.16 39,808.20 40,805.64 41,819.76 42,866.28 43,946.04 Custodian II 2 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 Custodian I 1 14.4588 14.8202 15.1907 15.5705 15.9598 16.3588 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 2,506.1866 2,568.8413 2,633.0623 2,698.8889 2,766.3611 2,835.5201 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 30,074.24 30,826.10 31,596.75 32,386.67 33,196.33 34,026.24 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING Engineering Manager7 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 77.5094 79.4471 81.4333 83.4691 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11, 584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,47 5.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 13,434.9 562 13,770.8301 14,115.1008 14,467.9783 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146,056.89 149,708.31 153,451.02 157,287.29 161, 219.47 165,249.96 169,381.21 173,615.74 Principal Civil Engineer6 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 70.2197 71.9751 73.7745 75.6189 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 12,171.4072 12,475.6924 12,787.5847 13,107.2743 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132,320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142,494.52 146, 056.89 149,708.31 153451.02 157287.29 Senior Civil Engineer5 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 63.6155 65.2059 66.8361 68.5070 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 11,026.6942 11,302.3616 11,584.9206 11,874.5436 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 12 5,944.40 129,093.01 132, 320.33 135,628.34 139,019.05 142494.52 Associate Civil Engineer 4 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Associate Engineer 114 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Associate Engineer 13 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 Assistant Engineer II2 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Assistant Engineer2 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 Engineering Technician 11 1 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Engineering Technician l 1 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Page 10 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level PUBLIC WORKS - INSPECTIONS ■ Salary Steps ■ Construction Managera 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 Supervising PW Inspectora 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 Senior PW Inspector3 32.2230 33.0245 33.8500 34.6994 35.5640 36.4527 37.3650 38.3007 39.2599 40.2426 41.2493 (Y -Rate) 5,585.2400 5,724.8700 5,868.0000 6,014.7000 6,165.0700 6,319.2000 6,477.1800 6,639.1000 6,805.0800 6,975.2100 7,149.5900 67,023.01 68,690.96 70,408.00 72,174.75 73,973.12 75,821.62 77,719.20 79,665.46 81,660.59 83,704.61 85,798.54 Senior PW Inspector3 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 PW Inspector 11 2 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 PW Inspector l 1 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 PUBLIC WORKS - LANDSCAPE Maintenance supervisor -5 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 Landscape 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 Field Supervisor - Landscapea 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 Senior Landscape Inspector3 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 La ndscape Inspector 112 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 Landscape Inspector l 1 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 PUBLIC WORKS - MAINTENANCE . -_ Maintenance Manager7 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Maintenance 6 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 Superintendent 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 Maintenance Supervisor5 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Field Supervisor -4 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 Maintenance 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 Lead Maintenance Worker 3 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 Maintenance Worker 11 2 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 Maintenance Worker l 1 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 Page 11 of 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2018 Class Family/ Title Level Salary Steps PUBLIC WORKS - FACILITIES ■ Field Supervisor - Facilities 4 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 Lead Maintenance Worker- 3 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 Facilities 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 Maintenance Worker 11 - 2 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 29.5885 30.3282 31.0865 31.8636 Facilities 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 5,128.6788 5,256.8958 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 61,544.15 63,082.75 64,659.82 66,276.31 Maintenance Worker l - 1 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Facilities 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 PUBLIC WORKS - SIGNALS Maintenance Supervisor -5 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 52.2122 53.5175 54.8555 56.2269 57.6325 59.0734 60.5502 62.0639 Signal 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 9,050.1215 9,276.3745 9,508.2839 9,745.9910 9,989.6407 10,239.3817 10,495.3663 10,757.7504 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 108,601.46 111,316.49 114,099.41 116,951.89 119,875.69 122,872.58 125,944.40 129,093.01 Field Supervisor - Signala 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 47.3017 48.4843 49.6964 50.9388 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 8,198.9634 8,403.9375 8,614.0359 8,829.3868 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 98,387.56 100,847.25 103,368.43 105,952.64 Senior Signal Technician3 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 42.8530 43.9243 45.0225 46.1480 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 7,427.8562 7,613.5526 7,803.8914 7,998.9887 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 89,134.27 91,362.63 93,646.70 95,987.86 Signal Technician 11 2 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 40.7881 41.8078 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 7,069.9404 7,246.6889 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 84,839.29 86,960.27 Signal Technician l 2 31.0865 31.8636 32.6602 33.4767 34.3136 35.1715 36.0508 36.9520 37.8758 38.8227 39.7933 5,388.3182 5,523.0262 5,661.1018 5,802.6294 5,947.6951 6,096.3875 6,248.7972 6,405.0171 6,565.1425 6,729.2711 6,897.5028 64,659.82 66,276.31 67,933.22 69,631.55 71,372.34 73,156.65 74,985.57 76,860.20 78,781.71 80,751.25 82,770.03 SUPPORT SERVICES , ■_ Support Servicesa 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 26.8057 27.4759 28.1628 28.8669 Supervisor 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 4,646.3299 4,762.4881 4,881.5503 5,003.5891 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 55,755.96 57,149.86 58,578.60 60,043.07 Senior Support Services3 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 24.2847 24.8918 25.5141 26.1520 Technician 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 4,209.3456 4,314.5792 4,422.4437 4,533.0048 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 50,512.15 51,774.95 53,069.32 54,396.06 Support Services Technician2 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 22.0007 22.5507 23.1145 23.6924 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 3,813.4593 3,908.7958 4,006.5157 4,106.6786 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 45,761.51 46,905.55 48,078.19 49,280.14 Support Services Assistant 1 16.7677 17.1869 17.6166 18.0570 18.5084 18.9712 19.4454 19.9316 20.4299 20.9406 21.4641 2,906.4081 2,979.0683 3,053.5450 3,129.8837 3,208.1308 3,288.3340 3,370.5424 3,454.8059 3,541.1761 3,629.7055 3,720.4481 34,876.90 35,748.82 36,642.54 37,558.60 38,497.57 39,460.01 40,446.51 41,457.67 42,494.11 43,556.47 44,645.38 Page 12 of 12 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 19 December 12, 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM NO. 19 Randi Johl From: Matt Peters Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 11:05 AM To: Randi Johl Subject: FW: Altair Supplement/Clarification City Council Agenda Packet Attachments: ESA Memo - Late Comment Letters - Response to Comments - 12.09.17.pdf; 11 _p9-11.pdf; 00_TOC_pg V.pdf; Altair Development Agreement Onsite Conservation Revision.docx Hi Randi, Please see attached supplements to the agenda packet: 1. Revisions to the Specific Plan, Section 11.9 Wildlife Conservation Fee and the Table of Contents. These revisions are made in order to be consistent with the RCA MSHCP Consistency letter dated, December 8, 2017. 2. Development Agreement Section change to 4.4.50), Onsite Conservation revised to more accurately identify the lot numbers (in the appropriate tract phase) for permanent conservation. 3. Technical Memo from the City's EIR Consultant, ESA addressing late EIR comments, and various project comments. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. - Matt Matt Peters Senior Planner City of Temecula (951) 694-6408 matt.peters@temeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 einotw FI wort Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. Fr ESA 550 West C Street Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 619.719.4200 phone 619.719.4201 fax Memorandum Date: December 8, 2017 To: Matt Peters, Senior Planner, City of Temecula From: Eric J. Ruby www.esassoc.com Subject: Response to Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Sierra Club and Cougar Connection Letter (28 & 32), Endangered Habitats League (EHL) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (Letter (29), USFWS/CDFW Letter (30) and Endangered Habitats League (EHL) Email (31) The Draft EIR for the Altair Specific Plan was circulated for public review from May 2, 2016 to June 17, 2016. On February 14, 2017, the Temecula City Council held a public hearing to respond to all comments received prior to that meeting concerning the South Parcel uses and to provide direction to City staff for the development and inclusion of an alternative land use on the Civic Site that would lessen impacts as compared to the proposed land use options contained within the Specific Plan. Several comments received on the Altair Specific Plan ("Project") Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR or "Draft EIR") expressed concern about the proposed uses on the Southern Parcel (or Civic Site) portion of the Specific Plan, as well as a host of other issues (e.g., air quality, climate change, hydrology, and traffic). Many of these comments were received during the public review period on the DEIR, and thus were included in the Responses to Comments section of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR or "Final EIR"). Additional written comments were received several months after the public comment period ended, including the above referenced letters and email, additional letters submitted for the November 15, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, and a second letter received from CBD on December 6, 2017. The second CBD letter has not been responded to due to the date of receipt, and has been attached to this memorandum. This memorandum and the attached CBD, EHL/TNC, USFWS/CDFW letters and EHL email, along with responses to these letters/emails are being provided for informational purposes as the City as lead agency is not required to include responses to late comment letters in the FEIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.). The responses to these letters/email were prepared by the Applicant with select content from and in coordination with the project biologist/environmental consultant Helix Environmental Planning, the Applicant's legal counsel Downey Brand, the City Planning Department, and ESA. Many of the issues raised in the letters/email—including the letters and emails received by the Planning Commission and Planning Department in November and December 2017—have been addressed in the common and individual responses contained in the Final EIR. For purposes of clarity and public information, comments contained in the attached letters/email have been responded to in the attached response to comments. r ESA. Mr. Matt Peters November 28, 2017 Page 2 ESA, the city's EIR consultant, has reviewed the attached responses to comments, concurs with the responses, and has determined that they are consistent with the Draft EIR and similar responses to comments provided in the Final EIR. Likewise, none of the comments or responses present any significant new information that would require recirculation under Section 21092.1 of the Public Resources Code or Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM CBD, SIERRA CLUB, AND COUGAR CONNECTION - No DATE, RECEIVED NOVEMBER 20, 2017 Response CL -28-A The introductory comment is noted and responded to substantively below. Responses CL -28-B and CL -28-C The commenters state that the Project Description for the South Parcel is unstable. In support of this, the commenters state that the Project Description does not specify what will be developed on the South Parcel, and instead lists a number of potential uses, such as an educational facility, office/research facility, convention center, hospital or cultural center. The commenters state that each of these potential uses presents unique impacts to the environment and local community. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not inform decision -makers and the public of the true scope of the Project in order for all interested parties to assess the direct and indirect effects of the project. The commenters state that, as a result of the Project Description being unstable, the DEIR does not provided a firm basis to assess environmental costs and appropriate mitigation measures. The commenters state that traffic impacts will vary depending on the nature and extent of civic uses, which will affect air pollution as well as noise and light impacts that could affect the behavior and movement patterns of nocturnal animals. The concerns raised in these comments are addressed in Response to Comment 18-F at page 3- 99 of the FEIR. As indicated on page 3.9-7, the DEIR evaluated impacts on the South Parcel/Civic Center site based on the most intense use under consideration. Based on the respective impacts of each of the possible uses contemplated for this site, a higher education facility was determined to be the most intensive use in the DEIR, in part because it would involve the largest number of daily users and trips to and from the site. If a future proposed use substantially deviates from the impacts analyzed in the DEIR for the higher education facility and presents new or unmitigated impacts, additional environmental review will be conducted in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. In response to comments on the DEIR, City staff and the Altair project applicant developed a Nature Center land use proposal for the Civic Site portion of the Specific Plan. That Nature Center land use proposal is Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As explained on page A-2 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, a two-story maximum building height, and a pad elevation about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this alternative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as natural and manufactured open space. Appendix A provides additional environmental analysis to document potential impacts associated with the proposed Nature Center Use as compared to the Civic/Institution use already 1494639.13 evaluated in full in the DEIR. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. Response CL -28-D The commenters state that the Project is directly at odds with the General Plan, Community Design Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, and Open Space/Conservation Element Policy 5.1, because it will result in "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment." According to the commenters, the DEIR claims consistency with these policies by stating that the Project would retain 85 acres of land as open space, but that retaining 85 acres of land for the 270 -acre Project is inconsistent with the identified policies. The DEIR addresses the Policies identified in this comment on pages 3.9-1 1 and 3.9-12. • Community Design Element Policy 5.1 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Westem Escarpment." This Policy requires the City to work with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development affecting the visual backdrop of the valley. As explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In addition, as explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the DEIR does more than state that 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy. The DEIR also states that it minimizes visual impacts on the surrounding hillside by including design guidelines and development standards to encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design, and that it would obtain all necessary local permits and approvals for grading activities. Furthermore, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. • Community Design Element Policy 5.2 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Westem Escarpment." This Policy requires retention of critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on the west and south edges of the City. As explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In addition, as explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the DEIR does more than state that 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy. The DEIR also states that it minimizes development on steep slopes, because it has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding hillsides and would be developed at a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita Mountains. Furthermore, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. • Community Design Element Policy 5.3 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment." This Policy requires establishment of a program to acquire, or permanent protect, critical hillside areas from development. As explained on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In 2 1494639.13 explaining this consistency, the DEIR does state that it complies with this Policy because 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy and, even if the DEIR did so state, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. The DEIR, however, does state that it minimizes development on steep slopes, because it has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding hillsides and would be developed at a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita Mountains. • Open Space/Conservation Element 5.1 does not forbid "intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment." This Policy requires conservation of the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. As explained on page 3.9-12 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with this Policy. In addition, as explained on page 3.9-12 of the DEIR, the DEIR does more than state that 85 acres of land will be retained as open space in explaining the Project's consistency with this Policy. The DEIR also states that it minimizes development on steep slopes, because it has been designed around the natural features of the site and would be developed at a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita Mountains. Furthermore, this Policy also does not state, or otherwise indicate, that retaining 85 acres of land for a 270 -acre project is inconsistent with the Policy. As outlined above and Appendix A to the FEIR, in response to public comments the City and Applicant developed the Nature Center Use as a possible alternative land use for the Civic Site. The Nature Center Use further lessens the Project's potentially significant impacts, and will devote additional acreage to open space purposes. In this manner, this new use furthers the land policies set forth by the commenters. Response CL -28-E The commenters make three main comments: (1) First, the commenters state that Conservation Element Policies 3.2 and 3.3 require the City to coordinate with relevant agencies in conserving biological resources and implementing the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The commenters state that the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has informed the City that the Project will not be consistent with implementing the MSHCP and that the City is not coordinating with RCA but frustrating RCA's ability to do its job. The commenters further state that DEIR does not set forth any facts demonstrating that it was coordinated with the RCA, and offers the conclusory statement on page 3.9-14 of the DEIR that "the project has coordinated with the County and the RCA regarding the implementation of the MSHCP." The City and applicant consulted with the RCA and other agencies throughout the development and review of the DEIR and FEIR. The DEIR at pages 3.3-1 to 3.3-66, as well as in Appendices C, C1, and M, considers in detail the Project's potential impacts on sensitive biological resources and habitats, as well as consistency with the MSHCP. 3 1494639.13 Although expressing general concern about MSHCP consistency, the RCA's June 15, 2016 on the DEIR acknowledges the ongoing consultation between the City and RCA, including the effort to address that concern in the FEIR. Since that time, the City has continued to work with the RCA to address its concems, and through additional efforts to refine the Project and evaluate and mitigate its potential impacts on biological resources and MSHCP consistency in particular, the City has determined that the project is consistent with the MSHCP (see, e.g., FEIR, Common Response, at 3-5 to 3-6). This is particularly true for the Nature Center Use, which reduces the footprint and intensity of land uses on the Civic Site, and makes additional acreage available for species habitat and movement. (2) Second, the commenters state that the Project is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policy 3.7 and Land Use Element Policy 6.3, which require the maintenance and enhancement of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River to ensure long-term viability of wildlife movement corridors. The commenters state that the DEIR concedes that the Project could impede wildlife movement at the intersection of Santa Margarita River and Murrieta Creek but asserts on page 3.9-14 that the inadequate mitigation measures will render it consistent. The commenters state that the DEIR's conclusion is disputed by RCA, USFWS, and CDFW. On page 3.9-22, the DEIR states that it is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.3, because the Project would not involve development adjacent to Murrieta Creek or the Santa Margarita River would incorporate "green" drainage infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff from the site. There is no mention of mitigation measures. On page 3.9-14, the DEIR states that implementation of mitigation measures "MM -AES -1, MM - BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM -N01 -1a, MM-NOI-lb and MM-NOI-3" will render the Project consistent with Conservation Element Policy 3.7. The commenters do not identify any deficiency in the proposed mitigation or specify why these mitigation measures are insufficient to support a finding that the Project is consistent with these Policies. (3) Third, the commenters state that the Project violates Implementation Program OS -9, which requires all development proposals in the MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages "provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance," as stated on page 3.3-4 of the DEIR. The commenters further state that Implementation Programs OS -33, OS -34, and OS -35 require developments to be consistent with the MSHCP, as stated on page 3.3-5 of the DEIR. The commenters state that the enforcing agencies have determined that the Project is not consistent with the MSHCP, the DEIR does not provide adequate biological assessments, and the DEIR fails to mitigate significant impacts. Implementation Program 0S-9 is located on page 3.3-4 of the DEIR, and Implementation Programs 0S-33, OS -34, and 0S-35 are identified on page 3.3-5 of the DEIR. The DEIR, including the MSHCP Consistency Report in Appendix C, provide detailed analysis of potential impacts and mitigation for impacts to biological resources. Surveys were performed in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP and, where required, species-specific surveys were performed. Further, the DEIR has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce all effects to biological resources to less than significant. 4 1494639.13 Response CL -28-F The commenters state that Table 3.9-4 of the DEIR does not explain in detail how the Project is consistent with the all applicable general plan policies, instead generally refers to mitigation measures. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not explain why some policies are "Not applicable," including at pages 3.9-12 3.9-16, and 3.9-19 of the DEIR. Page 3.9-8 of the DEIR states that "Table 3.9-4 evaluates the project's consistency with relevant policies in the City of Temecula General Plan" and, "[a]s detailed in Table 3.9-4, the project would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies that pertain to the project." Table 3.9-4 is located on pages 3.9-11 through 3.9-28 of the DEIR, and contains a "Statement of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable" for each identified policy. Under the "Statement of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable," all of the identified policies are determined to be either "Consistent" or "Not Applicable." Regarding the policies determined to be "Consistent," the Table 3.9-4 does more than "generally refer [] to mitigation measures" as the commenters state. For example, on page 3.9-11 of the DEIR, under the "Statement of Consistency, Non -Consistency, or Not Applicable" for Community Design Element 5.1, it states: Consistent. The project includes design guidelines and development standards to encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding hillsides. The project would also retain approximately 85 acres of natural open space along the western portion of the project site, which would provide a buffer between the proposed project and the undeveloped hills to the west. In addition, the project would obtain all necessary local permits and approvals for grading activities. The commenters do not identify additional general -plan policies that should have been identified or specific any specific analysis of consistency with a general -plan policy that is inadequate. Regarding the policies determined to be "Not applicable," such policies are irrelevant to the Project and required no additional explanation: • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-12 of the DEIR, Air Quality Element Policies 1.1 — 1.3 were determined to be "Not applicable" because these policies relate to general City planning efforts with respect to air quality improvement programs. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-15 of the DEIR, Open Space/Conservation Element 6.8 was determined to be "Not applicable" because that policy does not relate to City review of individual projects. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-16 of the DEIR, Public Safety Element Policy 1.4 was determined to be "Not applicable" as it relates to City monitoring of seismic events and other geologic activity. 5 1494639.13 • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-18 of the DEIR, Public Safety Element Policy 2.4 was determined to be "Not applicable" because the Project does not involve nuclear -power production. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-19 of the DEIR, Open Space/Conservation Element Policies 2.9 — 2.12 were determined to be "Not applicable" because they do not relate to City review of individual projects but instead provide that the City should participate in various planning activities and programs, and facilitate educational programs. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-20 of the DEIR, Growth Management and Public Facilities Element Policies 7.1 and 7.3 were determined to be "Not applicable" because they do not relate to individual projects but instead to the City's coordination with other agencies regarding public flood control projects. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-24 of the DEIR, Noise Element Policy 2.2 was determined to be "Not applicable" because the Project does not include the placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-25 of the DEIR, Noise Element Policy 4.3 was determined to be "Not applicable" because it relates to the City's law enforcement standards. • In Table 3.9-4, on page 3.9-25 of the DEIR, Noise Element Policy 4.5 was determined to be "Not applicable" because it relates to the City's participation in planning activities with other agencies regarding airports. Response CL -28-G The commenters make five main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR incorrectly states that the City "planned for development at the Project site and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space" on page 3.1-17. The commenter states that the Westside Specific Plan approved by the City in 1995 would have permitted mixed-use development adjacent to the Project site but was superseded by the City's 2005 General Plan, which contains the policies commenters discuss in previous comments that "prohibit development in the Western Escarpment." The policies in the City's 2005 General Plan that commenters discussed in previous comments CL -28-D, CL -28-E, and CL -28-F do not "prohibit development in the Western Escarpment." Further, pages S-3 and 2-1 of the DEIR state that one of the Project Objectives includes "minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment" and page 2-29 of the DEIR states that the Project applicant "will donate to the RCA a conservation easement over 269.6 acres of hillside escarpment in the city of Corona that is adjacent to a MSHCP Criteria Cells" and "will assign to the RCA an existing Purchase and Sale Agreement (P&SA) for the acquisition of 8.97 acres located on the hillside escarpment adjacent to the proposed project for conservation." 6 W04639.13 (2) The commenters state that the DEIR does not adequately address light pollution from the Project, because "there is no way to mitigation [sic] the light impacts of installing thousands of people in an undeveloped wildlife area." Impacts of light and glare on wildlife are analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the DEIR, including at pages 3.3-39 to 3.3-40, and Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3, at page 3.3-40, incorporates measures directed at the reduction of impacts on species due to nighttime constructing lighting, including a prohibition on nighttime construction in areas abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project would be subject to the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, which includes measures for the reduction of impacts on species based on light and glare once the Specific Plan Area is occupied, and analysis pursuant to the relevant Guideline is at pages 3.3-33 and 3.3-61 of the DEIR and at page 50 of Appendix C to the DEIR (PDF page 2419 of the Appendices). Further, the Nature Center Use alternative would further reduce light and glare, particularly as nighttime use and lighting is strictly limited (App. A to FEIR). (3) The commenters state that the DEIR does not cite studies or biological opinions on page 3.1-19 indicating sufficient mitigation of impacts on wildlife. Impacts of light and glare on wildlife are analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the DEIR, including at pages 3.3-39 to 3.3-40, and Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3, at page 3.3-40, incorporates measures directed at the reduction of impacts on species due to nighttime constructing lighting, including a prohibition on nighttime construction in areas abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project would be subject to the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, which includes measures for the reduction of impacts on species based on light and glare once the Specific Plan Area is occupied, and analysis pursuant to the relevant Guideline is at pages 3.3-33 and 3.3-61 of the DEIR and at page 50 of Appendix C to the DEIR (PDF page 2419 of the Appendices). (4) The commenters state that the aesthetic simulations in Figure 3.1-2 and Figure 3.1-3 do not appear to be accurate, because they appear to downplay the actual size of the development, do not specify whether they address a four -to -five story buildout as discussed in the Project description, and appear to have omitted the Western Bypass. The aesthetic simulations were conducted based on generally accepted methodologies, and provide an accurate depiction of the proposed development from the most likely view area. Due to the unique topography and layout of the site in relation to surrounding areas, the size of the development and mass associated with proposed buildings will actually be less than a similar project with flat, uniform topography. In this way, aesthetic impacts are less than what might otherwise be expected. (5) The commenters state that the DEIR incorrectly states, on page 3.1-17, that "scenic views" of the hills and Western Escarpment will not be impacted by the Project, and that the DEIR admits as much in a subsequent sentence stating that "the visual character of the project site would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high - 7 1494639.13 density urbanized development." The commenters further state that the DEIR is incorrect in stating, on page 3.1-18, that the impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels by "[a]dherence to the design guidelines and development standards." This comment conflates impacts on "scenic views" of the surrounding area with "the visual character of the project site." The former refers to the surrounding area, whereas the latter refers to the Project site. Due to the unique topography of the site, the development is not expected to impair scenic views of the hills and Western Escarpment. Further, the City has determined that mitigation for aesthetics is effective, and commenters provide no contrary factual evidence. Response CL -28-H The commenters state that the DEIR air-quality impacts analysis is flawed because it does not take into account all sources of air-quality impacts resulting from the Project and fails to adopt all feasible measures to reduce the Project's significant air-quality impacts. Specifically, the commenters state that, on page 3.2-15, the DEIR relies upon Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology, which the South Coast Air Quality Management District has stated apply to projects of only five acres or less. Page 3.2-15 of the DEIR states that construction LSTs are used for a 3.5 -acre site and operational LSTs are used for a 5 -acre site. These LSTs are shown in Table 3.2-5, which is on page 3.2-16 of the DEIR. As set forth in Response to Comment 22-G from the Final EIR, this method of evaluating local air quality impacts is more conservative than looking only at the aggregated emissions for the entire site. Response CL -28-I The commenters state that the DEIR contains a chart entitled "Proposed Regional Construction Emissions" that does not explain how the statistics described as estimated maximum daily emissions were calculated and instead lists the source as "ESA, 2015" at page 3.2-21. The commenters further state that some of these statistics appears in the Appendices to the DEIR at PDF page 106, but that the assumptions listed in the Appendices to the DEIR are not explained in any detail. The commenters provide the following examples: on PDF page 104 of the Appendices, it is not clear whether the assumption of "2 -mile trip" means that construction trips were calculated as being only 2 miles; and, on PDF page 105 of the Appendices, the assumption that "intemalization reduction" is included in the calculations does not describe the reduction or explain its basis. The reference "ESA, 2015" in the table entitled "Proposed Regional Construction Emissions," which is Table 3.2-6 on page 3.2-21 of the DEIR, is explained in DEIR Section 7.2 References, which is on page 7-10 of the DEIR. As indicated on page 7-10 of the DEIR, "ESA, 2015" refers to "Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2015. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report. April, 2015," which is found in Appendix B of the DEIR. Appendix B includes the assumptions made in the calculations. Regarding PDF page 104 of the Appendices, there is a statement that the calculation "*Assumes all comes from phase 3 as worst case travel analysis 2 mile round trip." The assumed "2 -mile 8 1494639,13 round trip" refers to obtaining the cut/fill materials needed for the Project. PDF page 105 of the DEIR Appendices states that "Project Operational Information" "* Includes Mode Shift Adjustment / Internalization Reduction." Response CL -28-J The commenters state that "the Project involves the installation of a freeway within a few feet of residential developments," and that the DEIR does not offer any analysis of emissions impacts on "sensitive populations," including children and the elderly, in a potential residential development and a proposed elementary school. The Western Bypass is a previously -approved project, based on separate environmental review. The proposed Project would modify the alignment for the Western Bypass. The DEIR evaluates air impacts (for both construction and operation) on sensitive receptors and includes mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant. (See e.g. DEIR, pp. 3.2-15-16, 3.2-28, 3.2-19, 3.2-25-29.) As explained on page 3.2-19 of the DEIR, "while residents would be considered sensitive receptors, the project site is not located within 1,000 feet of any major sources, including high-volume roadways or freeways. Therefore, this analysis discusses impacts from TACs on a qualitative basis." Further, the DEIR is not required to assess the impacts of the surrounding environment on the health and safety of the Project's future residents or users. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369, 387 ("California Bldg. Indus. Assn.").) Nevertheless, the DEIR evaluates Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) at pages 3.2-11, 3.2-16, 3.2- 19, and 3.28-3.29, and notes that the project is not a significant source of TACS and there are no major sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the proposed development. Consequently, as the DEIR states, the project is not expected to contribute to any significant exposure to "nearby" or "new onsite receptors." Response CL -28-K The commenters state that the DEIR acknowledges significant air-quality impacts, but includes only six mitigation measures (MM -AQ -la through MM -AQ -Ie and MM -AQ -2) that provide few specific details and lack adequate enforcement mechanisms. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not analyze and adopt all feasible mitigation measures, and it does not sufficiently analyze available mitigation measures for reducing GHG emissions, such as those provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA) and the California Office of the Attorney General that the DEIR. The commenters provide two examples: on page 3.2-24 of the DEIR, MM -AQ -1d says that it will comply with 2013 Building Standards, but the more stringent 2016 Building Standards are now applicable to the Project; and MM -AQ -2 does not cite any studies or analysis supporting the conclusion that watering the construction site will reduce construction emissions to a less -than -significant level. Many of the measures identified by the commenter do not apply to this sort of residential development, and several measures were already included in existing measures or as part of the project's design. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion. Specifically, the references to building standards have been updated to 2016 and the 9 1090639.13 mitigation measure GHG-1 has been strengthened and included in the FEIR at pages 2-32 to 2- 33. MM-GHG-1 will also serve to lessen the air quality impacts of the project. Due to the overall emissions and very low significance thresholds, however, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Response CL -28-L The commenters state that the DEIR does not cite any authority supporting, or analyze, its claim on pages 3.2-15 and 3.2-20 of the DEIR that compliance with regional land -use plans is consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) regional growth forecasts and therefore consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As referenced in the DEIR, the growth associated with this project is consistent with regional growth forecasts by SCAG, which in turn serves as the basis for the AQMP. Response CL -28-M The commenters claim that the DEIR does not analyze or disclose the impacts to special status species and disagree with the DEIR's conclusion that certain special status species were not detected during various biological surveys. The commenters also state that the DEIR does not explain whether the surveyors were searching for the species or whether they were qualified to identify them. The commenters state that many of the species that were listed as not detected in surveys were listed as having a "high" potential to occur on the Site. The commenters do not identify any specific species in their comment but instead generally reference "special status species." The DEIR adequately addresses impacts to special status species. Surveys were performed by Helix Environmental Planning, which specializes in environmental consulting and natural resource sustainability. Those surveys were performed in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP, Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3. A list of all the surveys performed is provided in Appendix C, page 2 and described again on page 4. All species with a Moderate or High Potential to be on site, as well as species found actually present on site, are specifically listed in Table 3.3-3 of the DEIR. All species that were evaluated for their potential to be on site are listed in the master table found in Appendix C1, this table includes species with a low potential. The Mitigation Measures include the requirement that focused surveys be performed by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction. See also Response to Comments 27-T, 27 -AA, 27 -BB, 27 -CC in the Final EIR. Response CL -28-N The commenters cite the DEIR statements regarding the presence of San Diego ambrosia on the Project site. The commenters state that the plants will be transferred, but the DEIR does not identify a location for the transfer. The commenters also claim that the mitigation measure for the plant is impermissibly vague and is likewise unenforceable because it is "voluntary." The commenters state that the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to the paniculate tarplant are less than significant is not based on substantial evidence because destruction of a special status species or 10 1494639.13 its habitat qualifies as a significant impact. Finally, the commenters claim the DEIR did not specify whether the surveyors were looking for specific plant species or were qualified to identify them. The DEIR identifies the population of San Diego ambrosia on the Project site, stating approximately 300 individuals were found during a previous survey. (DEIR, p. 3.3-36.) The species is listed as endangered under the federal ESA, is a CNPS list 1B.1 species, and a Narrow Endemic Plant Species under the MSHCP. (DEIR, p. 3.3-12.) San Diego ambrosia is covered under the MSHCP and impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP. Therefore, no mitigation is required. The MSHCP serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the NCCP Act. The MSHCP allows the participating jurisdictions to authorize "Take" of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. In addition, the Project site lies outside of MSHCP survey area requirements for the species. Coverage under the MSHCP is afforded because the 3 known populations are being conserved and approximately 21,800 acres of potential habitat will be conserved. The MSHCP allows for take of in excess of 50,000 acres of potential habitat. The applicant has voluntarily proposed, as a Project Conservation Feature, to translocate all San Diego ambrosia found on the site. This voluntary feature is not a mitigation measure, as no mitigation is required for impacts to the San Diego Ambrosia. As provided in the DEIR, "[t]he translocation will occur on already conserved land within 10 miles of the project site" and the "receptor site will be selected in conjunction with the City, the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and resource agencies." (DEIR, p. 2-29.) In addition, the "applicant will prepare a translocation plan for City review and approval prior to implementing the translocation effort. The RCA will be responsible for any long-term management and monitoring obligations as part of their overall management and monitoring efforts for the MSHCP preserve." (DEIR, p. 2-29; FEIR, p. 2-7.) Paniculate tarplant is a CNPS list 4.2 species. The CNPS List 4 is a watch list for species with limited distribution or occurring infrequently throughout a broader range. Paniculate tarplant occurs from San Luis Obispo County south to the Califomia-Mexico border and into Baja Califomia, and is observed throughout western Riverside County in coastal sage scrub, grassland and vernal pool habitats. This species was observed in limited numbers on the northern portion of the site in the area that was previously graded as part of the Ridge Park Office Complex development. Given that the species is a List 4 species, was observed in limited numbers, and was observed primarily in a previously graded portion of the site, impacts are considered less than significant. Additionally, this species is anticipated to benefit from landscape scale conservation of sage scrub, grassland and vernal pool habitats through implementation of the MSHCP. With regard to the commenters' claim regarding surveys, please see the response to Comment CL -28-M. 11 1494639.13 Response CL -28-O The commenters make three main comments: (1) The commenters claim that Mitigation Measure BIO -1 is inadequate because it only requires clearing activities take place outside of the breeding season "to the extent feasible," does not state if the breeding season is for all bird species, does not limit setback requirements, and does not state the minimum qualifications of the biologist. The commenters also claim that the DEIR also does not adequately address the destruction of habitat for the birds. Impact BIO -1 relates to activities associated with construction of the project on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark. The breeding season listed in Mitigation Measure B10-1 applies to all species and is the standard breeding season used in this context. There is discretion in the biologist to either increase or decrease setbacks based on certain findings which are spelled out in the mitigation measure. Several mitigation measures provide specific requirements pertaining to the qualifications of the biologist. For example, Mitigation Measure B10-3 provides that the qualified biologist must have "a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites." Similarly, MM -BIO -1 requires that the qualified biologist conducting the activity under that measure have a "demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys." The DEIR adequately addresses and mitigates for impacts to habitat. Impact B10-6 relates to potential impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. Mitigation Measures 6a and 6b provide mitigation for these potential impacts to habitat. Mitigation Measure 6a requires the payment of Local Development Mitigation fees to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Mitigation Measure 6b requires lands identified for contribution to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) to be included on the final map and conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of such parcels to the RCA. The project is required to conserve a minimum of 82.77 acres on site. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts to sensitive habitat covered under the MSHCP are reduced to less than significant. (2) The commenters also state that the DEIR does not take adequate steps to protect the burrowing owl, admits that the owl may be killed during construction activities, and ignores that the project is destroying habitat for the owl. The commenters claim that the DEIR does not provide any evidence that translocation of the owl will be successful, and states that translocation will not reduce impacts to less than significant because the owls' available habitat will be reduced and that will result in a take. The commenters additionally claim the mitigation should include long-term monitoring of passively relocated birds. 12 1494639.13 The burrowing owl is listed as adequately conserved under the MSHCP. The MSHCP permits the take of species so long as the Project is in conformity with the MSHCP. As required under the MSHCP a survey was conducted specifically for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the focused surveys, however suitable habitat was found in the upland vegetation communities and disturbed habitat across the project site. (DEIR, p. 3.3-37.) Mitigation Measure BIO -2 requires that additional surveys be performed by a qualified biologist prior to initial ground disturbing activities. If any burrowing owls are detected during those pre -construction surveys, the City of Temecula and the RCA must be notified, and the application must implement the procedures provided in MM BIO -2. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-37-38.) Passive relocation, if necessary, would follow established protocols that have been proven effective, as burrowing owl are a highly adaptable species. (3) The commenters claim that the DEIR fails to take any steps to mitigate impacts on the federally threatened gnatcatcher and yellow warbler, stating that both species occur on the Project site and will suffer habitat loss. Impacts to the gnatcatcher and yellow warbler are included within the discussion of impacts to migratory birds and special -status wildlife provided on page 3.3-36 of the DEIR. The DEIR acknowledges the habitat loss associated with Project construction. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-43-45.) The coastal California gnatcatcher and the yellow breasted warbler are listed as adequately conserved under the MSHCP. Further, the Project will contribute significantly to required MSHCP fees as required under Mitigation Measure BIO -6a, and will conserve a minimum of 82.77 acres onsite as required under Mitigation Measure BIO -6b. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Response CL -28-P The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters claim that the DEIR does not adequately discuss aquatic species that may inhabit the streams or adjacent land, and specifically identifies the Western Pond Turtle (WPT). The commenters disagree with the statement in the MSHCP Consistency Report that no WPT habitat will be impacted because the Project lies entirely outside of Murrieta Creek, stating that WPT regularly occupy areas outside of creeks for hibernation and refuge. The DEIR acknowledges that the WPT uses areas nearby upland habitat bordering aquatic areas. It explains that the WPT uses "[a]djacent upland areas ... for overwintering and estivation sites. Temecula Creek at the confluence of Murrieta Creek appears to be a key area, along with the Santa Ana River, Santa Rosa Plateau, and San Jacinto River (Dudek 2003). Where the Civic Site abuts Murrieta Creek, the western edge of the creek has steep side slopes that limit access to the upland areas for pond turtle, while the area to the east of the creek consists of gently sloping terrain that provides better access to upland areas. The terrain west of the creek and south of the Civic Site flattens out for a portion of the creek channel making the proposed 13 1494639.13 conservation area in the southern portion of the site more accessible to pond turtles." (Appx. C, p. 38.) The DEIR also provides that the WPT is a "thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams & irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 1800 m elevation" and they "[n]eed basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg -laying." (Appx. CI -11.) While generally the western pond turtle is known to use upland areas, the specific site conditions at the Project Site precludes usage of upland areas on the South Parcel by the species. The presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use. Thus, no impacts to western pond turtles are anticipated on the South Parcel under either alternative. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to WPT are less than significant. (See FEIR, pp. 2-8 to 2-9.) (2) The commenters claim that the DEIR does not support its conclusion that there will be no suitable habitat for the California red -legged frog (CALF), Arroyo Toad, or Mountain Yellow Legged Frog (MYLF) on the Project site. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that there is no suitable habitat for these three species on the Project site. (See FEIR, p. 2-9.) Response CL -28-Q The commenters make four main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR does not set forth adequate mitigation measures to protect wildlife from polluted runoff, and that the DEIR's statements on pages 3.3-32 that it will comply with the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and that "measures" shall be implemented to avoid discharge of untreated runoff are unenforceable and vague. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not comply with request on page 9 of RCA's letter that measures be implemented to "avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas." The DEIR incorporates the regulatory requirements under the NPDES Construction General Permit and requirements for preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). There is an extensive discussion of how the Project will be designed to handle urban runoff during the operational phase on pages 3.8-19 and 3.8-20. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, on page 3.8-20 of the DEIR, requires preparation of a final drainage study by a registered civil engineer; and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, on page 3.8-25 of the DEIR, pertains to the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. Compliance with construction and post -construction requirements under NPDES permitting requirements has proven effective at limiting the volume and 14 1494639.13 protecting the quality of state and federal waters. The Project, therefore, is not expected to contribute significantly to the quality or volume of runoff to local drainages. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR contains no specific mitigation measures to safeguard wildlife from toxic chemicals generated by the Project, and that on page 3.3-32 the DEIR states only that unspecified "measures" will ensure that toxic chemicals are not discharged into MSHCP areas. Page 3.3-32 of the DEIR states that "[m]easures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented." Accordingly, toxic chemicals would be covered within the existing mitigation measures pertaining to urban runoff and spill prevention, which are expressly designed and required to protect beneficial uses. (3) The commenters further state that page 3.3-33 of the DEIR contains similarly vague mitigation measures to protect MSHCP Conservation areas from lighting, noise, and invasive species. The commenters do not identify any specific deficiency with the mitigation measures, other than vagueness. The Mitigation Measure AES -1, which can be found on pages 3.1- 18 to 3.1-19 of the DEIR, contains very specific requirements regarding lighting, and requires that a lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the City. Mitigation Measures NO1-1 through NOI-5, which can be found on pages 3.10-25 to 3.10-30, 3.10- 32, and 3.10-35 of the DEIR, are very detailed regarding noise generated from project construction and project operation. Mitigation Measure BIO -4, which can be found on pages 3.3-42 to 3.3-43, includes an invasive species management plan. (4) The commenters state that the DEIR lists a variety of mitigation measures that have limited or no relevance to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, and that the DEIR should list and explain how it complies with each of the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. The DEIR lists, and explains how the DEIR complies with, each of the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines provided in the MSHCP, and it does so more than once. Volume I, Section 6.1.4, pages 6-42 to 6-46, of the MSHCP lists the following Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface: Drainage; Toxics; Lighting; Noise; Invasives; Barriers; and Grading/Land Development. These Guidelines are listed, and compliance with each Guideline is explained, at pages 3.3-61 to 3.3-62 of the DEIR, at pages 3.3-32 to 3.3-33 of the DEIR, and at pages 50 to 51 of Appendix C to the DEIR. Response CL -28-R The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that on page 3.3-34 of the DEIR states that no surveys were conducted for amphibian or mammal species because the site is not in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), but that not being located in a CASSA is irrelevant to the City's duty to ascertain the environmental baseline. 15 1494639.13 PDF pages 2343 to 2440 of Appendices to the DEIR contain Appendix C, the MSHCP Consistency Report. MSHCP Consistency Report Section 3, PDF pages 2361to 2366 of the Appendices and internal pages 4 to 8 of the Report, addresses the methods used for identifying species that could potentially be impacted by the Project. As provided in Appendix C, on PDF page 2374 of the Appendices and internal page 15 of the Report, because no appropriate habitat occurs on the property for any amphibian species listed under MSHCP 6.1.2, none of the species has the potential to occur. As provided in Appendix C, on PDF page 2420 of the Appendices and internal page 41 of the Report, the Project is not within any mammal survey area, and no surveys or mitigation is required, under the MSHCP. Despite this, Appendix Cl, Species Table, which is PDF pages 2441 to 2457 of the Appendices to the DEIR, does provide a review of the potential for mammal species to occur on site on PDF pages 2456 to 2457 and internal pages C1-15 to C1-16 of the Species Table. As explained in Section 4.7 of Appendix C, from PDF pages 2384 to 2389 of the Appendices and internal pages 25 to 27 of the Report, and in Appendix CI, on PDF page 2456 of the Appendices and internal page C1-15 of the Table, for mountain lions, data from radio collared mountain lions was analyzed, as well as a host of additional factors influencing species movement. Further, the DEIR performed those surveys that are required under the MSHCP. The MSHCP includes detailed species surveys for plants and wildlife and only directs project applicants to prepare site-specific surveys for specific species based on a project site's characteristics. (2) The DEIR states that the following plants occur outside, and were not observed on, the site, and does not provide any information as to whether suitable habitat exists on the site for, or whether surveyors were qualified to identify and looking for, the following plant species: Lemon Lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Parish's meadowfoam, Santa Ana River woolly -star, and Brand's phacelia. This comment is factually incorrect. As explained in Section 4.2.1 of Appendix C, the MSHCP Consistency Report, on PDF page 2370 of the Appendices and internal page 12 of the Report: "A number of the species have distributions well above the elevations at the project site, and/or well north or east of the project site. Species in this group include lemon lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Parish's meadowfoam, Santa Ana River woolly -star, and Brand's phacelia." Response CL -28-S The commenters quote the portion of the EIR that states that the Project will permanently impact 1.24 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat, and claim that the mitigation proposed—the preparation of a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP") per the MSHCP and a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan if required by CDFW—is inadequate and constitutes improper deferral of mitigation. The commenters also claim that Mitigation Measure BIO -4b defers specifying any ratios for mitigating riparian habitat impacts. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.6, on pages 3-12 to 3-13, of the FEIR regarding the Project's consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. As explained in the Common Response, consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, the project proposes to mitigate for these impacts at a 3:1 ratio for Riparian resources and at a 1:1 ratio for Riverine resources. Mitigation for both 16 1491639.13 temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or off-site habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. Based on this, the project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine policy of the MSHCP. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to Riparian and Riverine habitat to less -than -significant, there will be no "unavoidable" impacts to these resources. Response CL -28-T The commenters state that there is no evidence in the record that the payment of mitigation fees determined by the City and the conservation of 82.77 acres within the Project site will mitigate the impacts of installing hundreds of houses on undeveloped land. There is extensive evidence in the record regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP, including in the Impacts Analysis (DEIR, p. 3.3-58-3.3-66), Mitigation Measures BIO -6a and BIO -6b (DEIR, p. 3.3-45), and in Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 (FEIR, pp. 3-6- 3-14). The MSHCP covers 1.26 million acres of wildlife habitat and aims to acquire and set aside 500,000 acres for preservation by 2029. To date, the MSHCP has reached 79% of its acquisition goals through collection of MSHCP fees, land donations, and in -lieu land dedications, putting the MSHCP well on its way to achieve its goals and permanently protect a broad spectrum of plants, animals, and habitats, including those species and habitats potentially impacted by the proposed Project. Please also refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. Response CL -28-U The commenters claim that the Project will severely constrict wildlife corridors and interfere with mountain lion movement, citing to an email from Dr. Winston Vickers from November 2014. The commenters claim that the DEIR's conclusions regarding mountain lion movement are not supported by substantial evidence and disagree with the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will not preclude use of the Proposed Linkage 10. The commenters also state that none of the proposed mitigation measure will ensure that the mountain lions are able to continue to use the wildlife corridors in Linkages 10, 13, and 14. Please refer to Common Response 3.2.8 of the Final EIR concerning Mountain Lion/Linkage Impacts. Responses CL -28-V and CL -28-W The commenters claim that the Project will violate the MSHCP and that it will significantly interfere with the functionality of MSHCP linkages and will frustrate movement of wildlife, including mountain lions. Please refer to Final EIR Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP, and Common Response 3.2.8 regarding impacts and analysis of mountain lion. 17 1494639.13 Responses CL -28-X and CL -28-Y The commenters claim that the DEIR does not support its conclusion that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP and that the Project fails to comply with the MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines. Please refer to Common Responses 3.2.2 through 3.2.7 regarding the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. Response CL -28-Z The commenters state that it is unclear whether the 24,953 MTCO2e figure is accurate, and it is not clear what source is cited as "ESA, 2015." in Table 3.6-2. The reference to "ESA, 2015" in Table 3.6-2, at page 3.6-15, is explained in the References at page 7-10. It is referring to ESA's 2015 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report ("GHG Report"), included as Appendix B to the DEIR. The 24,953 MTCO2e figure, which is set forth at page 32 of the GHG Report (PDF page 133 of the Appendices), was generated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), a statewide land use emissions computer model that serves as the industry standard for quantification of potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction and operations of land use projects. The assumptions and input data are explained in greater detail in the GHG Report. Response CL -28 -AA The commenters incorrectly state that the DEIR improperly utilized the "business as usual" approach to determine the significance of GHG impacts, which was rejected by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Ca1.4th 204 ("Newhall Ranch"). The DEIR does not use "business as usual" methodology to evaluate the significance of GHG impacts. On pages 3.6-11 to 3.6-12, the DEIR expressly acknowledges the Newhall Ranch case in support of its decision not to use the "business as usual" approach to determining significance. As stated on page 3.6-11, the DEIR utilizes the thresholds of significance set forth in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to that analysis, the DEIR first asks whether the project would [g]enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment." On pages 3.6-11 to 3.6-12, acknowledging that there "is no adopted state or local standard for determining the significance of the project's GHG emissions," the DEIR compares the emissions from the project to three potentially applicable bright -line and service population thresholds considered by the SCAQMD Stakeholder Working Group, then makes its significance determination based on the most conservative of those thresholds. On page 3.6-18, the DEIR finds GHG emissions to result in a significant and unavoidable impact. 18 1494639.13 As stated on page 3.6-11, after determining whether there would be a significant impact, the DEIR analyzes whether the project may "[cjonflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases." Response CL -28 -BB (1) The commenters state that the mitigation measures are inadequate. Specifically, in criticizing MM-GHG-1 on page 3.6-18 of the DEIR, the commenters state that the applicant should be required to achieve LEED certification, not just use "best efforts." The commenters further state that the EIR does not adequately demonstrate that additional mitigation measures are not feasible. Changes to MM-GHG-1 have been incorporated in the FEIR, which changes are responsive to the CBD request to add specific, enforceable measures. (FEIR, pp. 2-15 to 2-16.) These measures and existing design elements of the proposed Project include many of the measures referenced in Table 16 of CAPCOA's paper, CEQA and Climate Change (January 2008), including for example bicycle parking, bike lanes/paths, pedestrian network, higher density residential, electric vehicle recharging capabilities, drought resistant landscaping, no wood -burning stoves, energy and water efficient fixtures and appliances, solar capabilities onsite, nearby recreation and downtown, and exceedance of Title 24. Because LEED Certification is governed by a non-governmental entity, as well as the fact that this project may not qualify for LEED Certification due to its location (and not design), LEED Certification cannot be guaranteed. Nevertheless, the measures will be incorporated to help substantially lessen impacts associated with GHG emissions (and air emissions and energy use). Whether or not LEED Certification is achieved, the project will still result in indirect and cumulative GHG emissions above thresholds commonly applied by local and state agencies, and therefore this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR does not adequately analyze consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan and Temecula Sustainability Plan. On pages 3.6-18 to 3.6-19, the DEIR discusses consistency with both the CARB Scoping Plan and the Temecula Sustainability Plan, and finds that the project is consistent with both plans with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Response CL -28 -CC Commenter provides a list of proposed mitigation measures, including a variety of "green building" methods it claims would be effective to reduce Project GHG impacts. The agency has a duty to consider a reasonable range of mitigation measures that could reduce impacts, even if it adopts a statement of overriding considerations. The DEIR did so, as described on page 3.6-17. Although the DEIR concluded that this required mitigation would substantially lessen the Project's cumulative impacts on GHG emissions, it acknowledged that its cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, in part due to the use of an extremely conservative threshold of significance for GHG emissions. 19 1.194639.13 In an effort to respond to the commenters concerns, the City and applicant reviewed the CAPCOA and other lists of possible mitigation. CAPCOA measures are already incorporated as part of the Project or are required under current building standards (see, e.g., DEIR, p. 3.6-5). Further, the FEIR amends the existing mitigation to add additional measures to help lessen the significant cumulative impacts of the project on global climate change (see FEIR, pp. 2-15- 2-16 [including many of the measures referenced in Table 16 of CAPCOA's paper, CEQA and Climate Change (January 2008)]). Despite these added measures, the Project's cumulative emissions remain significant and unavoidable, largely due to vehicle emissions associated with residents and visitors traveling to and from the Specific Plan Area. These emissions are beyond the control of the City or Applicant, as they depend on the relative emissions of the statewide vehicle emissions standards. Those standards are becoming more stringent, but not sufficiently so to reduce this Project's impacts to a less than significant level under the conservative significance threshold used by the agency. Consequently, this EIR conservatively identifies these impacts and significant and unavoidable. Response CL -28 -DD The commenters make three main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR fails to inform the public of fire dangers associated with the Project, because the DEIR states that the Project is "near" a "High Fire Hazard Area" without disclosing where this area is in relation to the project. The DEIR is not required to assess the impact of the surrounding environment on the health and safety of the Project's future residents or users. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn., supra, 62 Ca1.4th at 387.) The DEIR nevertheless discloses and analyzes the proximity of the proposed development to the High Fire Hazard Area, concluding that with mitigation incorporated the Project's impacts associated with fire hazards would be less than significant (DEIR, page 3.7-3, 3.7-12, and 3.7-13). (2) The commenters state that the "fuel modification plan" in MM-HAZ-1 would involve replacing native plants with drought resistant alternative that can be assumed to involve significant impacts on plants, wildlife, and other biological resources. The commenters state that the DEIR does not provide specific information on, or analyze impacts on biological impacts from implementation of, the fuel -modification plans. The commenters state that the DEIR should analyze the areas impacted by fuel -modification plans as part of the development "footprint" of the Project; that no fire clearance/thinning activities should occur within the boundaries of any federally designated critical habitat, open - space, natural area, or wildlife movement corridor; and that fuel -modification plans must ensure that invasive species are planted as part of the plans. Page 3.3-60 of the DEIR states that fuel modification is consistent with the MSHCP: "Project fuel modification zones would not extend into the existing or project -proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. As such, the project would be consistent with the Fuel Modification Guidelines in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP." In addition, on page 3.7-13 of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 requires that the City review and approve a 20 1494639.13 Fre Modification Plan, which shall include "[a] list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification zones." Response CL -28 -EE The commenters make eight main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR provides that runoff from "developed" portions of the site would be treated, but that the DEIR does not identify which portions of the site will be considered "developed" or what types of treatment the stormwater will undergo. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not clearly state to what extent will discharge directly into Murrieta Creek, stating that that runoff from the development will be "treated" and also that "the majority of the project discharges directly into Murrieta Creek..." on page 3.8-19. The DEIR explains in numerous places which areas of the Project are proposed for development and which areas are proposed for open space or conservation lands, such as in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 on pages 2-5 and 2-6. Furthermore, on page 3.8-19, the DEIR includes a detailed description of the onsite storm drainage system that will be constructed as part of the Project — including an explanation of where flows will be conveyed — and states that a preliminary drainage study was prepared for the site to determine the peak post -developed onsite 100 -year flow rates for the site. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR does not provide data regarding existing water - quality conditions sufficient to provide an adequate baseline for evaluation of impacts on local and regional water quality. The CEQA guidelines require that the description of the environmental setting "shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) MM -HYD -1 has been strengthened to ensure against any potentially significant adverse impacts on local hydrology and drainages, as stated on page 2-16 of the FEIR. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR provides, on page 3.8-5, only a list of substances constituting impairment under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for Murrieta Creek and does not provide adequate water -quality information regarding Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River. The DEIR evaluates water quality as relevant to the Project's setting, which is within the Murrieta Hydrologic Area, and the CEQA guidelines require that the description of the environmental setting "shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) On page 3.8-3, the DEIR states that Murrieta Creek is impaired by metals/matalloids, nutrients, pesticides, and toxicity, and Table 3.8-3 shows the impairments and potential pollutant sources. The DEIR evaluates the pollutants under the USEPA impaired waterbodies section 303(d) list in Table 3.8-3 because, as stated on page 3.8-3 of the DEIR, "Murrieta Creek is listed as impaired on the State of Califomia's 2010 list of impaired water bodies pursuant to provisions of Clean Water Act Section 21 1494619.11 303(d)." In addition, on page 3.8-5, the DEIR discusses Temecula Basin groundwater, and identifies the following constituents of concern: total dissolved solids, nitrate, volatile organic compounds, perchlorate, fluoride, and manganese. This list of constituents of concern and the following discussion of those constituents relies upon "(MWD, 2007)," which is identified on pate 7-19 of the DEIR's References as "Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 2007. Chapter IV: Groundwater Reports" with an Internet link to access the report. As explained in response to comments concerning the steelhead population in Common Response 3.2.9, on pages 3-23 to 3-24 of the FEIR, the Project as designed is not anticipated to reduce water quality or otherwise alter the hydrology in the Santa Margarita River. (4) The commenters state that the DEIR understates the impacts on water quality. The commenters do not agree with what they characterize as the DEIR's conclusion on page 3.8-18 that "runoff patterns during and prior to construction will be the same," because the DEIR states that grading activities will require four million cubic yards of cut and fill on page 8.8-29. The commenters state that intensive grading of the site will "very likely" change runoff patterns. The DEIR provides ample support for its statement that runoff conditions "would not substantially change" during construction." Page 8.8-18 of the DEIR addresses runoff and drainage during construction, and explains that "[t]he proposed drainage pattern would generally be the same during project construction when compared with the pre - project condition. As a result, runoff conditions would not substantially change during construction activities." Furthermore, on pages 8.8-18 to 8.8-19, DEIR explains that "[c]onstruction [best management practices (BMPs)] would be in place during storm events as required by the Construction General Permit" and that `BMPs have proven effective at substantially reducing or eliminating runoff during construction." (5) The commenters state that mitigation measures are not described in sufficient detail to ascertain whether they will be effective, because the types and effectiveness of the referenced BMPs are not disclosed for a project in close proximity to three streams that are home to aquatic life — Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The DEIR provides sufficient information on BMPs. On pages 3.8-7 to 8.8-12, the DEIR describes the BMPs required under the SWPPP for the applicable California Construction Stormwater Permit and the BMPs required under the applicable Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits. In Table 3.8-5, on pages 3.8-22 to 3.8-24, the DEIR also provides an extensive list of potential construction BMPs. Courts have found similar levels of specificity sufficient. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Ca1.App.4th 777, 795.) (6) The commenters state that the DEIR's mitigation measures impermissibly defer actual development of the mitigation measures. The commenters state that MM -HYD -1 impermissibly defers a drainage study to verify capacity of existing drainage facilities on page 3.8-19 and, if the facilities are found insufficient, only requires the unenforceable measure that "onsite detention would be considered" on page 3.8-20. The commenters 22 1494639.13 further state that MM -HYD -3 defers development of the Projects Water Quality Management Plan until immediately before the building or grading permits are issued. Regarding MM -HYD -1 on page 3.8-20 of the DEIR, the CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards for mitigating a significant impact that might be accomplished in various ways. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) In addition, a lead agency may rely on future studies to devise the specific design of a mitigation measure when the results of the later studies are used to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions. (City of Hayward v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 855 ("City of Hayward").) The language of MM -HYD -1 has been edited to further support and clarify the mitigation measure at page 2-16 of the FEIR. MM -HYD -3, on page 8.8-28 of the DEIR, addresses future development that could occur under the proposed Specific Plan, and requires Water Quality Management Plans tailored to each future development: "As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan." Such project -specific Plans cannot be created until the future development has been planned and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)), and courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56). (7) The commenters state that required compliance with the MS4 permit in MM -HYD -1 is insufficient to support the DEIR's finding that stormwater runoff would not have a significant impact. In support of this statement, commenters cite to Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dep't of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 ("Californians") for the proposition that compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding of less than significant environmental impacts. On page 3.8-20, the DEIR states that implementation of MM -HYD -1 and compliance with the MS4 permit "would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded." The case cited by the commenters, Californians, did not address circumstances similar to those presented by the DEIR. In Californians, the court found complete reliance on a Department of Pesticide Regulation program inadequate where the program "does not, nor was it intended to, address the environmental impacts of administering a statewide pesticide application program." (Californians, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at 17.) In contrast, the EIR relies upon the requirements of the applicable MS4s, which directly address environmental impacts from stormwater runoff and require site-specific BMPs (as explained on pages 3.8-8 to 8.8-12), as well as the measures in the revised MM -HYD -1 that directly addresses and mitigates project -specific impacts (as explained on page 2-16 of the FEIR). 23 1494639.13 (8) The commenters state that MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3, which require compliance with a SWPPP, potential BMPs, and the MS4 permit, require only compliance with existing legal obligations and thus are not "mitigation measures." Requiring compliance with the SWPPP, BMPs, and the applicable MS4 permits in mitigation measures provides additional clarity and enforceability. If anything, by requiring such compliance, the DEIR provides additional disclosure and analysis of impacts. Response CL -28 -FF The commenters make three main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR does not adequately analyze Project's impacts on water supply because, although it acknowledged that the local water agency has issued an "Extreme Water Supply Warning" requiring substantial cutbacks in water usage, the DEIR concludes that adding 4,000 people to a City of 100,000 will have no significant impact on water supply. The DEIR, and the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) provided in Appendix J (PDF pages 4014 to 4187 of the Appendices), provide a thorough analysis of the Project's impact on the water supply and the water supply available to meet the Project's needs. As provided on page 3.14-14 of the DEIR, the "water demand analysis prepared for the Altair Specific Plan by [Rancho California Water District (RCWD)] shows the build -out of the project would increase RCWD's potable and recycled water demand by approximately 446 AFY and 99 AFY, respectively. The water supply projections are anticipated to increase through year 2041 despite drought and environmental restrictions; this is mainly due to efficiencies in water allocation management as well as use of increased recycled water supply." Thus, as demonstrated in Table 3.14-5 on page 3.14- 15, the projected supplies exceed demand until the year 2041, while factoring in the projected demand required for the Project. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR indicates that groundwater recharge and "local groundwater" will substantially contribute to the water supplies for the Project, but that there is no analysis in the DEIR as to whether the groundwater basin can sustain continued pumping, especially in the event of prolonged droughts. The DEIR discloses and analyzes the Project's potential effects on groundwater supplies in both Chapter 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, on pages 3.8-30 to 3.8-31; in Chapter 3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment, on pages 3.14-1 to 3.14-18; and in Appendix J (WSA), PDF pages 4014 to 4187 of the Appendices. As explained on page 3.14-1 of the DEIR, the Project will obtain water from RCWD that consists of 33% local groundwater from the Murrieta -Temecula Groundwater Basin. As stated on page 2-2 of Appendix J (PDF page 4041 of the Appendices), Senate Bill 610 requires that Projects that will rely on groundwater must provide additional information conceming the adequacy of the groundwater supplies, pages 4-21 to 4-31 of Appendix J (PDF pages 24 1494639.13 4070 to 4080 of the Appendices) contain a robust discussion of groundwater in the Murrieta -Temecula Basin. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR's water -supply analysis does not adequately plan for the possibility that the state and regional water agencies will curtail water deliveries to the RCWD, which provides water to the City. The commenters state that the WSA recognizes that the Project will rely on deliveries of water, including deliveries through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), and that MWD recently reduced water deliveries to RCWD by 15%. The commenters state that there is no discussion in the DEIR or WSA as to whether adequate water supplies exist for the Project in the event that water -supply deliveries to RCWD are further reduced. A thorough evaluation of how drought restrictions may affect groundwater supplies can be found above in the responses to Response CL-28-FF(1) and (2). Responses CL -28 -GG and CL -28 -HH The commenters make five main comments: (1) The commenters state that construction operations will result in noise levels of 89 dBA and above, which is above the 70 dBA limit established in Temecula Municipal Code section 9.20.040. The commenters state that the Project will seek a construction exception under section 9.20.070 and, if the exception is not approved, the applicant will install noise barriers, state-of-the-art mufflers, and reduce the amount of concurrently operating equipment. The commenters state that, by stating on page 3.10-26 that these mitigation measures will be implemented if the exception is not approved, the DEIR concedes that these mitigation measures are feasible but, on page 3.10-27, incorrectly concludes that construction noise impacts are significant and unavoidable. MM-NOI-la is included so as to substantially lessen the significant impacts associated with construction noise. While some measures are available to reduce noise, given the nature of construction activities, and even with all of the identified mitigation incorporated, noise levels will remain significant and unavoidable. (2) The commenters state that the Project will violate Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) vibration thresholds, as stated on page 3.10-28 of the DEIR, but mitigation measures for vibration are inadequate and unenforceable. Specifically, according to the commenters' interpretation of page 3.10-29 of the DEIR, "MM-NOI-2b only requires the applicant to refrain from operating jackhammers within 20 feet of institutional structures" and that compliance is only "to the extent feasible." In addition, the commenters state that, pursuant to page 3.10-30 of the DEIR, MM-NOI-3 impermissibly defers mitigation of noise impacts by requiring compliance by the issuance of the building permit instead of during the CEQA process. The commenters cite page 3.10-30 to further state that both MM-NOI-2b and MM -N01-3 require mitigation "only if' noise standards are exceeded, and the DEIR is unclear as to who will make the determination that noise standards are exceeded. 25 1494639.❑ Regarding MM -N01 -2b, as stated on pages 3.10-28 to 3.10-29 of the DEIR, both MM - N01 -2a and MM-NOI-2b are implemented in response to construction activities that may exceed FTA vibration thresholds. Contrary to the commenters' characterization, mitigation is not limited to "require[ing] the applicant to refrain from operating jackhammers within 20 feet of institutional structures." In fact, MM -N01 -2b states that "operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities." In addition, MM-NOI-2a states that operation of construction equipment generating high levels of vibration "shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures" and that small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be used during demolition and grading operations. It is also proper to require that these mitigation measures be feasible. (hi re Bay -Delta Programmatic Envt'1Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165 ("Bay -Delta") ["[A]n EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project's underlying fundamental purpose."].) To the extent that the feasibility allows some variation in application of these mitigation measures, the CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)), and courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56). Furthermore, the DEIR does not state that these mitigation measures reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Page 3.10-29 of the DEIR states that, although "[i]mplementation of MM-NOI-2a and MM -N01 -2b would reduce the possibility of exposing sensitive land uses to excessive vibration levels," this impact is significant and unavoidable after mitigation. MM-NOI-3 is not deferred mitigation because it is clear what performance standard needs to be met. On page 3.10-30 of the DEIR, MM-NOI-3 states that the applicant must provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If such standards are exceeded, design measures — such as erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances — shall be taken to ensure compliance with City noise standards. The CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) And courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions. (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56.) The commenters do not state a specific provision on page 3.10-30 stating that MM-NOI- 2b and MM-NOI-3 require mitigation "only if" noise standards are exceeded. The DEIR states that these mitigation measures will be implemented, and does not require an additional determination regarding noise impacts before these mitigation measures are applied. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR does not offer any analysis of construction and operation noise on wildlife. The commenters characterize the DEIR as only generally referring to noise mitigation in the Biological Resources section, on page 3.3-61, and 26 1494639.13 stating that "wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards," on page 3.3-33. The DEIR evaluates the effects of noise on sensitive species in numerous places, including pages 3.3-33, 3.3-36 to 3.3-37, 3.3-39, 3.3-40, 3.3-43, 3.3-49, and 3.3-54. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1, on pages 3.3-36 to 3.3-37, requires that sensitive species be protected from noise, among other things, by construction setbacks. Construction setbacks will reduce noise, impacts. MM -BIO -1 further provides for the installation of noise walls or other noise attenuation devices if a qualified biologist in consultation with the City determines that a noise buffer is not feasible. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3, on pages 3.3-39 to 3.3-40, limits the idling of construction vehicles to minimize noise impacts. (4) The commenters state that "[c]ommon sense suggests" that siting the Westem Bypass in close proximity to the Project's residents will significantly impact the residents, and also state parenthetically that there will also be impacts on wildlife. The commenters interpret the DEIR to mean that residential development may occur "immediately nest to the Western Bypass" or within a few feet of a highway." The commenters further state that MM-NOI-5, on page 3.10-36, would allow siting close to Western Bypass because "unspecified `other measures' would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. The DEIR is not required to assess the impacts of the environment (i.e., existing noise or project noise) on the Project or the health and safety of the Project's future residents. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn., supra, 62 Cal. 4th at 387.) Furthermore, the commenters mischaracterize MM-NOI-5, which states that the "other measures" to reduce noise "includ[e], but [are] not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping." Regarding the commenters' parenthetical reference to impacts on wildlife, the focus of the comment is on residential development and the commenters do not identify any specific impact on wildlife that will occur due to siting a residential development close to a highway. (5) The commenters state that the DEIR defers analysis of noise impacts from foreseeable uses of the Project's civil portion, such as student housing and its "attendant parties, noise, and late-night activities." The DEIR is not required to include a detailed analysis of every potential use of the Project's civil portion. If a future proposed use substantially deviates from the impacts analyzed in the DEIR for the Project's civil portion and presents new or unmitigated impacts, additional environmental review will be conducted in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Response CL -28 -II The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the MDX model used data from mixed-use developments with substantial employment centers such that people can live and work in the same place. The commenters state that, because the City is a bedroom community and the 27 1494639.13 majority of residents commute to San Diego, and Project residents will need to commute to jobs in other cities to afford their residences, the MDX model is not appropriate to assess the traffic impacts of the Project. The City of Temecula has a substantial local jobs base and is not considered a bedroom community. Several large corporations have major operations based in Temecula and numerous smaller companies and public entities employ residents from the local area. A mixed -used development (MXD) trip generation model was used to estimate the trip generation for existing conditions and the proposed project. The MXD trip generation method utilizes raw ITE trip generation estimates and then determines internalization, bike/walk, and transit credits based on built environment variables (also known as Ds) such as design of the project, diversity of uses, demographics, density of uses, distance to transit, destination accessibility, etc. This method provides a much more accurate estimate of external trip generation than ITE trip rates alone. The MXD Model Documentation includes approximately 20 pages of support information related to the creation of the MXD+ trip generation modeling. As discussed therein, the MXD+ model is based upon two earlier trip generation studies including (1) the National Cooperative Highway Research program (NCHRP) Report 684, and (2) the US EPA sponsored Report "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments — A Six -Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures" which in turn was based upon a study of 239 Mixed Use Developments and verified through 27 mixed use sites across the U.S (2) The commenters state that the accuracy of the traffic analysis cannot be determined, because the DEIR does not disclose the average trip length or the average vehicle miles travelled (VMT). VMT analysis is not yet required as a metric for evaluating traffic impacts, and the City is afforded deference in selecting a methodology for determining significance in traffic impacts. Response CL -28 -JJ The commenters state that the DEIR does not specify the study area for traffic impacts or provide analysis of the regional traffic impacts of adding thousands of cars to the Temecula/I-15 corridor, as required by Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 575. As explained on page 3.13-1 of the DEIR, Figure 3.13-1 on page 3.13-2 shows the Project study area and identifies the analyzed intersection and roadway segment locations in and around the Project area. The critical turning movements associated with Interstate 15 in the vicinity of the project site are on and off ramps at Highway 79 South and Rancho California Road. These intersections were evaluated in the Draft EIR and mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts. The Draft EIR did not include an analysis of mainline I-15 freeway segments as the city does not have the authority to require mitigation/improvements to the state highway system. In addition, Caltrans indicated the following in their NOP comment letter: "Traffic impact analysis further away from 28 1491639.13 the project is typically not required because a project's impacts to the SHS dissipate to less than significant levels as traffic disperses throughout the transportation system". Response CL -28 -KK The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR states on page 3.13-18 that the Project will violate applicable levels of service (LOS) in the General Plan, but that the DEIR does not provide facts or analysis supporting its conclusion that "signal timing optimization" will reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels. Page 3.13-18 of the DEIR addresses the LOS and the applicable mitigation measure, MM -TRA -3. The DEIR states that development of the specific plan will cause the level of service at Intersection #10 (namely, the intersection of I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway) to degrade to a LOS F "during the PM peak hour." MM -TRA -3 provides that, prior to the first building permit in Phase 3 of the Project being issued, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization at Intersection #10. The signal timing optimization will include phase timings and cycle length to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes at Intersection #10, and will be approved by the City Engineer and implemented in coordination with Caltrans. In its discretion to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the City properly determined MM -TRA -3 to be effective in mitigating the impact on LOS at Intersection #10 during the peak afternoon hour. (1) The commenters state that the Project "may violate" Circulation Element Policy 1.1, which requires the City to strive to maintain a minimum LOS of LOS D. The commenters state that the DEIR indicates that it will not maintain such a minimum LOS at pages 3.13-16 and 3.13-23, and that mitigation measures MM -TRA -1 through MM - TRA -7 "do not demonstrate that the City is taking achievement of LOS D seriously." Page 3.9-27 of the DEIR states that the goal of the Circulation Element is to "[s]trive to maintain" LOS D at intersection within the City during peak hours and, as such, is a "best efforts" policy. On the same page of the DEIR, Policy 1.1 requires "[u]se [of] the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of the City's roadway system, including appropriate road width and median transitions when a roadway classification changes," and the Project is determined to be consistent with Policy 1.1 because "[t]he project will comply with the Circulation Element's Roadway Plan, as applicable." The commenters do not identify any specific reason why the Project will not comply with the Circulation Element's Roadway Plan or any specific reason why the mitigation measures chosen by the City "do not demonstrate that the City is taking achievement of LOS D seriously." Response CL -28 -LL The commenters make two main comments: 29 1494639.13 (1) The commenters state that, on page 3.13-31 of the DEIR, MM -TRA -14 improperly defers mitigation of traffic impacts because it only requires that development of a Construction Traffic Management Plan be prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, and that such deferral "shuts the public out of the environmental review process." The commenters state that the description of MM -TRA -14 states that the Plan "shall" require certain implementation measures, but the implementation measures or vaguely worded (for example, the commenters emphasize that the "applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary") or require only coordination with the City. Mitigation measure MM -TRA -14, on page 3.13-31 of the DEIR, states that the project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan or Plans for review and approval as part of the application for any grading or construction permit, and that such Plan or Plans shall, "[a]t a minimum," include three implementation measures. The commenters focus on the second two of these three mandatory implementation measures, both of which provide specific measures that will be taken to reduce the impacts of construction traffic: the measure requiring provision of necessary traffic control activities and personnel, and provides examples of potential activities and personnel, if a temporary road or lane closure is necessary during construction; and the measure requiring designation of proper detour routes and signage in coordinate with the affected jurisdictions if a road closer is required. Furthermore, MM -TRA -14 includes mandatory measures while allowing the flexibility necessary to best respond to a particular road or lane closure. The CEQA Guidelines provide that mitigation measures may specify performance standards that may be accomplished in various ways. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) And courts have recognized that a lead agency may retain the flexibility to tailor mitigation measures to fit on -the -ground environmental conditions. (City of Hayward, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at 855-56.) (2) The commenters state that the DEIR proposes widening roads to mitigate Project impacts, such as on page 3.13-27, but that the DEIR does not appear to analyze the impacts of such road -widening projects. The commenters cite the road widening referenced on page 3.13-27 in relation to Impact TRA- 11. Impact TRA -11 determines that road widening of Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane is not feasible due to right-of-way constraints at the location, and that the impact is thus significant and unavoidable. Therefore, there is no need for the DEIR to analyze the impacts of road -widening improvements that will not occur. Response CL -28 -MM The comment is noted. The comment consists of legal background and does not require a response. Response CL -28 -NN The commenters state that Table 4-1 of the DEIR contains a list of additional, foreseeable projects, but the DEIR does not discuss potential impacts of these projects anywhere else in the 30 1.194639.13 cumulative -impacts analysis, does not state whether these are all the nearby related projects, does not adequately explain how these projects were selected, and does not analyze the foreseeable cumulative impacts associated with these projects. The commenters state that DEIR must be recirculated and include an adequate analysis of additional cumulative impacts resulting from the Project as well as the foreseeable projects identified. On pages 4-4 to 4-20 of the DEIR, Table 4-1 and the following Section of the DEIR, 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects, provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the listed projects, as relevant to each specific resource area. The discussion of cumulative effects in an EIR "need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone" and "should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b).) The discussion of cumulative effects in an EIR need not be "exhaustive" and a "good faith and reasonable disclosure of such impacts is sufficient." (Ass 'n of Irritated Residents v. Cty. of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1403-04 [internal quotation marks omitted].) Further, where the lead agency finds that the project's incremental effect on a given resource is not cumulatively considerable, or significant, the lead agency need only "briefly" describe the basis for its conclusion and why it is not discussed further in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a).) The analysis provided in Table 4-1 is sufficient and meets the requirements of CEQA. As stated on page 4-2 of the DEIR, the projects selected for the cumulative -effects analysis in Table 4-1 were the "current and proposed projects" in the City that could potentially contribute to cumulative effects. The commenters have not identified a specific project that was omitted from the analysis. Response CL -28-00 The commenters state that the DEIR does not properly define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic area, citing CEQA Guidelines section 15130(6)(3). The commenters state that the DEIR instead states on page 4-2 that the projects in Table 4-1 are projects "that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area." The commenters further state that reference to the undefined term "project area" does not provide sufficient clarity regarding the geographic scope of the cumulative -impacts analysis. Section 4.2.1 Geographic Scopc, at page 4-2, of the DEIR describes the geographic scope of the cumulative -impacts analysis, and Section 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects, at pages 4-5 to 4-20, describes the geographic scope for each resource area. The geographic scope of the cumulative -impacts analysis is described on page 4-2 of the DEIR, and is restated under the analysis provided for each resource area. On page 4-2, the DEIR explains that geographic scope "varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic extent of the potential impact." For example, the "viewshed of the proposed project" is used for the analysis of aesthetics (see page 4-5), the entire South Coast Air Basin is used for the analysis of air-quality impacts (see page 4-6), and the entire watershed is used for the analysis of biological resource impacts (see page 4-7). Such description is sufficient. The commenters have not identified a specific project that was omitted from the analysis but that they believe should be included within the cumulative -impacts analysis. 31 1494639.13 Response CL -28 -PP The commenters state that, because the project -level air-quality analysis is inadequate, the cumulative -impacts analysis is also inadequate. The commenters state that the DEIR identifies potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on air quality but does not state whether all feasible mitigation measures have been required. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not provide detail on the nature and extent of cumulative impacts on air quality or the proximate number of persons impacted. The project -level air-quality analysis is adequate. Please refer to the responses to comments regarding the air-quality analysis. Furthermore, all feasible mitigation measures have been required. In addition to all feasible mitigation for air quality, all feasible mitigation is required for GHG (see DEIR, pp. 3.6-17-3.6-19; FEIR, pp. 2-15-2.16) and energy (see the compilation of energy-related mitigation measures at FEIR, pp. 2-31-2-34.) Response CL-28-QQ (1) The commenters claim that the DEIR fails to define the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis because it does not specifically identify the watershed. The specific watershed of the Project, Santa Margarita River watershed, is referenced multiple times in the DEIR. (See e.g. DEIR, p. 3.3-7, 3.4-2, 3.8-1.) (2) The commenters state that the Biological Resources cumulative effects analysis does not provide any meaningful analysis of the various existing and planned development that will alter the ecosystems surrounding the Project area—and instead falls back on the MSHCP. The commenter claims that there is no guarantee that the other projects will comply with the MSHCP, and such compliance is irrelevant to whether the projects will cause cumulative impacts. The Project and the other cumulative projects fall within the jurisdiction of the MSHCP. As explained on page 4-7 of the DEIR, the "MSHCP requires any new development to pay fees to support the financing for the MSHCP, to be applied toward acquisition and management of Conservation Area land. The fees are intended to meet mitigation requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act." As a result, the DEIR permissibly assumes that future projects will also comply with the MSHCP. Finally, where the lead agency finds that the project's incremental effect on a given resource is not cumulatively considerable, or significant, the lead agency need only "briefly" describe the basis for its conclusion and why it is not discussed further in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a).) (3) The commenters claim that the DEIR inaccurately implies that the Project's cumulative impacts to biological resources would not be considerable since the Project would implement mitigation measures in the DEIR and claim that the mitigation measures in the DEIR only address the Project's direct impacts. As provided in CEQA Guidelines, 15130(a)(3), "[a] project's contribution [to a significant cumulative impact] is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement 32 1494639.13 or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact." For this reason, the DEIR's cumulative effects analysis appropriately references the mitigation measures imposed on the project to reduce impacts to biological resources, such as the funding of conservation efforts under the MSHCP. The MSHCP is directly related to a cumulative effects analysis, as payment of a fee into the MSHCP is used to support conservation efforts within the region to ensure that cumulative -level effects of various projects do not cause cumulatively considerable effects to species. (4) The commenters claim that the DEIR contains no analysis of how the Project, combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects, will impact water quality, water supplies, noise levels, habitat corridors, and protected species. The commenters claim that issues not addressed include disturbances to animals, litter, vehicular deaths, off-road vehicle use nearby wildlife habitat, noise disturbances, increased hunting, spreading of invasive species and erosion. The discussion of cumulative effects "... need not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone" and "should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130.) The discussion of cumulative effects in an EIR need not be "exhaustive" and a "good faith and reasonable disclosure of such impacts is sufficient." (Irritated Residents, 107 Ca1.App.4th at 1403.) Further, where the lead agency finds that the project's incremental effect on a given resource is not cumulatively considerable, or significant, the lead agency need only "briefly" describe the basis for its conclusion and why it is not discussed further in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a).) The discussion provided in the EIR is sufficient in the areas of biological resources, water quality, water supplies, and noise. Response CL -28 -RR (1) The commenters state that the DEIR contains no analysis regarding the cumulative impacts of the Project on biological resources and that there is no discussion of the proposed Temecula Creek Inn, which the commenters claim will severely constrain proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. The DEIR provides an analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources on page 4-7. As stated by the Commenter, Appendix C does discuss the proposed Temecula Creek Inn as further impacting Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. (Appx. C, pp. 40-41.) Contrary to the Commenter's claim, Temecula Creek Inn will not have an effect on Proposed Linkage 10. "Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 does not directly touch the project site and its western terminus is located at 1-15 approximately 1,800 feet southeast of the southern boundary of the Civic Site. Given the distance from the project site, and the fact that the linkage occurs entirely east of 1-15, no direct or indirect impacts to Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 are anticipated from the Proposed Project." (Appx. C, pp. 40-41; DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Thus, the Project is not contributing to a cumulative effect. As to Proposed Linkage 10, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure BIO -6b, which will mitigate impacts to Linkage 10 to less than significant. Other cumulative projects would be required to adhere to and be consistent with the goals and objectives established in the MSHCP including those pertaining to the protection of Linkage 10. (2) The commenters state that the I-15/State Route 79 interchange project will impact much of the remaining acreage in Cell 7356, which contributes to Proposed Linkage 10. The commenter 33 1494639.13 also claims that the RCA asked the City to analyze the cumulative impacts of the 1-15/State Route 79 interchange projects, but the DEIR does not provide any analysis. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to provide an analysis of whether the project will "interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors." In addition, the MSHCP requires avoidance and mitigation measures with respect to specified mountain lion corridors. The I-15/79 Interchange project is included among the list of projects in the cumulative effects analysis. (DEIR, p. 4-5.) Response CL -28 -SS The commenters make three main claims: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR does not contain any meaningful analysis regarding potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality. The commenters state that the DEIR's statements that it will comply with existing regulations and permits are insufficient to demonstrate a lack of cumulative effects, as exemplified by the DEIR's recognition on page 4-10 that Murrieta Creek is already impaired. The DEIR contains meaningful analysis of, and sufficiently demonstrates less -than - significant, cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. Page 4-10 of the DEIR addresses potential cumulative hydrologic or water -quality impacts in the Project area due to pollutant generation associated with residential, commercial, and industrial uses that could affect surface waters and increases runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Furthermore, the DEIR does not base its conclusion entirely on compliance with existing regulations and permits, but recognizes that compliance with applicable regulatory standards can provide a basis for determining that the project will not have a significant environmental impact. (Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 933-34; see Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (201 1) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906 [`.`[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance."].) Page 4-10 of the DEIR explains that "all reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Murrieta Hydrologic Area would be required to implement non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs, similar to the proposed project. These drainage requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality. For example, during operation, the cumulative projects would be required to maintain water quality through development and implementation of BMPs pursuant to the SDRWQCB MS4 Permit and City Stormwater Ordinance requirements, which would reduce potential impacts of each related project." (2) The commenters state that the DEIR should have analyzed the impacts of residential and commercial pesticide and fertilizer use on Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The commenters further state that the RCA, on page 9 of its 34 1494639.11 letter, warned that wildlife is at a great risk from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. Page 3.8-25 of the DEIR discloses, analyzes, and mitigates for impacts to water quality based on pesticide and fertilizer use. In addition, Appendix G is the preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the project, which includes BMPs for landscape/outdoor pesticide use at PDF pages 3496 to 3497 of the Appendices and internal pages 31 to 32 of Appendix G. (3) The commenters state that the DEIR ignores the foreseeable cumulative impacts on the waterways adjacent to the Project of additional planned development, such as Temecula Creek Inn. Table 4-1 of the DEIR, on pages 4-4 to 4-5, provides a list of all the projects included in the description and analysis of the foreseeable water quality impacts and, on page 4-5, the Temecula Creek Inn is listed among those projects. As explained on page 4-10 of the DEIR, "all reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Murrieta Hydrologic Area would be required to implement non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs, similar to the proposed project. These drainage requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality." Response CL -28 -TT The commenters state that the DEIR does not provided the required analysis of alternatives for two reasons. First, the DEIR's analysis of the proposed alternatives is inadequate. Regarding the No Project Alternative, the commenters state that the DEIR should have discussed the need for the Project and whether it can be accommodated by existing areas, and relying on a 2008 CAPCOA white paper and a 2008 statement by the Office of the California Attorney General, that the DEIR should consider an alternative relying on "higher -density mixed commercial/residential development projects on existing disturbed lands in order to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and encourage efficient delivery of services and goods." Second, the commenters state that the DEIR does not include a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenters state that the DEIR does not state whether any other sites are potentially available within walking or cycling distance of Old Town, despite stating that the objectives of the project require a site within "walking or cycling" distance of Old Town on page 5-4. Both of the points raised by the commenters suggest that the DEIR should have considered altemative locations, but CEQA does not expressly require an EIR to discuss alternative locations for the project. Furthermore, because both points relate to entirely different property that is not owned by the Project applicant, the commenters are suggesting that the DEIR should consider an alternative that is likely not feasible for the Project applicant. The DEIR need not present alternatives that are infeasible or fundamentally incompatible with the Project objectives. (Bay -Delta, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 1165 ["[A]n EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is 35 1494639.13 infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project's underlying fundamental purpose."].) In response to comments on the DEIR, City staff and the Altair project applicant developed a Nature Center land use proposal for the Civic Site portion of the Specific Plan. That Nature Center land use proposal is Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As explained on page A-2 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, a two-story maximum building height, and a pad elevation about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this alternative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as open space, available as habitat and for passive recreation. Appendix A provides additional environmental analysis to document potential impacts associated with the proposed Nature Center Use as compared to the Civic/Institution use already evaluated in full in the DEIR. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. Response CL-28-UU The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR included only one alternative that is comparable to the project, Alternative 3, which mirrors the project except that it would relocate the civic use to the elementary-school site and remove the elementary school from the project. The commenters state that the DEIR did not consider a slightly downsized version of the project that could have accommodated both the civic use and the elementary school. The DEIR evaluates an adequate number of alternatives. On pages S-7 to S-8 and 5-4 to 5-17, the DEIR analyzes three altematives, a required no -project alternative where no development would occur, a no -project alternative where the site would be developed under the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan, and an alternative that would relocate the proposed educational/institutional use (e.g., college) to the area of the proposed elementary-school site (Village C) and the elementary school would be eliminated. Further, the City required the Applicant to consider a further land use alternative for the Civic Cite: a Nature Center Use that both meets most of the project objectives and further lessens the potential impacts of the project. (2) The commenters state that Table 5-2 of the DEIR concludes that Alternative 3 would not meet two Project goals. The commenters state that Table 5-2 concluded that Alternative 3 would not meet the Project goal of providing a civic site of up to 450,000, but that the page 5-14 of the DEIR states that a civic use of "up to 450,000 square feet." The commenters further state that Alternative 3 would not meet the Project goal of providing an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, but that the DEIR could have 36 1494639.13 evaluated an alternative that retained the elementary school by reducing the amount of residential units. As stated in the discussion of aesthetics on page 5-14 of the DEIR, the analysis of Alternative 3 included the "introduction of an educational/institutional use with up to 450,000 square feet of building area" at the elementary-school site. Regarding the range of alternatives that could have been evaluated, see the response to (1) above. Response CL -28 -VV The commenters state that the DEIR employed an improperly narrow objective to reject environmentally superior alternatives. The commenters state that by requiring both the 450,000 square foot civic center and an elementary school, and refusing to analyze reduced size alternatives, the DEIR "essentially preordains the development of the Project as proposed." On pages S-8, 5-6 to 5-7, and 5-15 to 5-17, the DEIR considers Alternative 3, which would require that the elementary school to be eliminated from the Project. Thus, the City did consider alternatives that did not meet every project objective. Response CL -28 -WW The commenters make two main comments: (1) The commenters state that the DEIR did not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, including: (a) increased density with a substantially smaller footprint; (b) transportation - oriented design surrounding existing transit nodes or transit corridors within or adjacent to the Project area; (c) a low -carbon alternative that would actually result in lower emissions; (d) conversion of the land into a conservation or mitigation bank; and (e) mixed-use development combined with a greater preservation and enhancement of existing wildlife habitat. CEQA requires that an EIR include analysis of a "reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives" that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a).) However, an "exhaustive list of alternatives is not required, and the statutory requirements for consideration of alternatives must be evaluated against a rule of reason." (Marin Man. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652.) As explained in Response CL-28-UU (1) above, the DEIR evaluates an adequate number of altematives, including reduced intensity and reduced footprint alternatives. In addition, the Final EIR includes an alternative use for the South Parcel for consideration by the City Council, the Nature Center use. This alternative use would modify the proposed use of the South Parcel. A description of the Nature Center can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Final EIR, and Appendix A. Overall, the Nature Center use would provide more than a 95 percent reduction in maximum building size and a 60 percent reduction in maximum building height compared to the South Parcel civic (university/hospital) use. The Nature Center use adds 8.9 acres of natural open space and revegetated areas when compared to the civic use. The Nature Center use also precludes 37 1494639.13 night time uses, which will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2, and Appendix A, the Nature Center use would be designed and mitigated to have a less -than -significant impact on mountain lion movement and population health and would enhance the use of the Murrieta Creek area by mountain lions when compared with the civic/institutional use. Furthermore, the commenters propose alternatives that are not feasible, fail to meet the fundamental project objective or most of the project objectives, or do not lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. (2) The commenters state that the DEIR should include quantitative and meaningful comparisons between the Project's impacts and proposed alternatives' likely impacts, including analysis of estimated GHG emissions, quantified impacts to biological resources, water resources including water quality and water availability, and traffic. Under CEQA, the DEIR's analysis of proposed alternatives' significant environmental impacts requires less detail than analysis of the Project's impacts. The DEIR nevertheless provides a detailed analysis of proposed alternative's impacts. On pages 5-8 to 5-17, the DEIR provides a narrative discussion of each alternative's impacts, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, GHG emissions and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and water supply assessment. In addition, in Table 5-3 on page 5-18, the DEIR provides a table summarizing the impacts and comparing each impact category for each alternative. The DEIR's analysis is thus consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(d). CEQA does not require that the DEIR contain a quantitative comparison of impacts and comparisons. In response to comments on the DEIR, City staff and the Altair project applicant developed a Nature Center land use proposal for the Civic Site portion of the Specific Plan. That Nature Center land use proposal is Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As explained on page A-2 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, a two-story maximum building height, and a pad elevation about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this alternative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as open space, available as habitat and for passive recreation. Appendix A provides additional environmental analysis to document potential impacts associated with the proposed Nature Center Use as compared to the Civic/Institution use already evaluated in full in the DEIR. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. 38 1494639.13 Response CL -28 -XX The commenters state that application of the three factors in Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369 ("Napa Citizens"), indicates that the DEIR should have contained a "detailed analysis" of growth - inducing impacts, but that the DEIR spends less than two pages on growth -inducing impacts. The commenters further state that the DEIR's analysis of growth -inducing impacts did not mention the Western Bypass. The commenters further state that the DEIR does not discuss how the Project will lead to increased population and will likely require construction of new or expanded public facilities, which will then cause additional significant impacts including those on the environment, wildlife, air quality, and traffic. The analysis of growth -inducing impacts on pages 6-1 to 6-3 of the DEIR is sufficient. A generalized analysis of growth -inducing effects is sufficient because "`[n]othing in the Guidelines, or in the cases, requires more than a general analysis of projected growth."' (See Cover Valley Found. v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 227 [quoting Napa Citizens, 91 Ca1.App.4th at 369].) Furthermore, "[a]n EIR must analyze the growth -inducing impact of a project, including reasonably foreseeable consequences but not speculative effects" (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass 'n v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1265 ("Federation of Hillside")), and an EIR need not undertake a detailed analysis of later growth that might be facilitated by a project (Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 369). The need for public services, such as fire and emergency services and schools, is evaluated in chapter 3.12 of the DEIR, on pages 3.12-1 to 3.12-15. The commenters do not specify which other "public facilities," if any, will become necessary. The DEIR, however, need not discuss every conceivable future project or expansion that could occur, whether or not they may be facilitated by the Project. (Federation of Hillside, 83 Cal.App.4th at 1265; Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 369) Response CL -28 -YY The commenters state that the DEIR does not analyze energy conservation measures as required by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, including transportation energy impacts and the use of renewable energy sources as required by California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 and the viability of adding renewable energy systems to the Project to mitigate environmental impacts. In order to further support and clarify the DEIR's analysis and conclusion, all of the information in the DEIR related to energy conservation has been compiled into new subsection, which can be found at pages 2-24 to 2-39 of the FEIR. Response CL -28 -ZZ The closing comment is noted. 39 1494639.13 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM EHL AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY FEBRUARY 14, 2017 Response CL -29-A The commenters state that they appreciate the thoughtful workshops the City held on wildlife movement and the MSHCP, and that they recognize the positive urban design features of the Project. This comment is noted. This comment does not state a specific concern about the adequacy of the DEIR and a response is thus not required pursuant to CEQA. Response CL -29-B The commenters state that they and others have expressed concern that there is not sufficient distance between the main linkage via Temecula Creek and civic site uses, particularly uses that would involve nighttime activity, traffic, and lighting. Specifically, the commenters state that uses such as a hospital or university are problematic. There are two possible MSHCP linkages that relate to Temecula Creek. Linkage 13 relates to the linkage along Murrieta Creek from the confluence of Temecula Creek to Cole Creek. The western end of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 relates to the area of Temecula Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River, which occurs immediately east of the southeastern corner of the Project Site. Linkage 14 lies almost entirely east of I-15. Figure 3.3-4 of the DEIR shows the linkages near the Project site. Given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the project site (approximately 1,800 feet) and its location (east of Interstate 15), the Project would not have any direct or indirect effects on that linkage. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) As provided in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would impact wildlife corridors, in particular Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 through reduction in width and the effects of the urban/wildlife interaction, but would not preclude the use of these linkages for wildlife movement. (DEIR, p. 3.3-45.) Impacts to Linkage 13 can be reduced to less than significant based on the more intense use—a university on the Civic Center site—with the application of Mitigation Measures MM -AES -1, MM -BIO -3, MM -BIO -6b, MM- NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, and MM NOI-3. (DEIR, p. 3.3-54.) In response to public comments on the Draft EIR and city council workshops, the Final EIR includes an alternative use for the Civic Site for consideration by the City Council, the Nature Center Use. A description of the Nature Center can be found in Chapter 1 and 2 of the Final EIR, and Appendix A. This alternative use would modify the proposed use of the South Parcel. Overall, the Nature Center Use would provide more than a 95% reduction in maximum building size and a 60% reduction in maximum building height compared to the South Parcel civic (university/hospital) use. The Nature Center Use adds 8.9 acres of natural open space and re - vegetated areas when compared to the civic use. The Nature Center Use also precludes nighttime uses, which will further facilitate wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. The Nature Center Use would include 8.2 acres of undulating slopes that will be restored with native vegetation. When that acreage is included in Constrained Linkage 13, the width of the corridor expands to 40 1194639.13 between 356 and 1,050 feet. As explained in Chapters 1 and 2 of the FEIR, and Appendix A of the FEIR, the Nature Center Use would further reduce possible adverse impacts of the project on wildlife corridors and would enhance the use of the Murrieta Creek area by mountain lions when compared with the Civic Center Use. The commenter can also refer to Common Responses 3.2.1 and 3.2.8 of the Final EIR. Response CL -29-C The commenters state that less intensive civic uses are viable, including a nature center with associated trails, which could lead to surrounding attractions, and interpretive facilities. The commenters offer to provide scientific input on such a use. The currently proposed land use for the civic site is the Nature Center Use that is analyzed in Appendix A to the FEIR, entitled Civic Site Nature Center Use Analysis. As stated on page A-1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use substantially lessens certain significant impacts of the proposed Civic/Institutional land use and will not result in any "new" or more severe environmental impacts that have not already been evaluated and mitigated in the DEIR. As explained on page A-4 and depicted in Figure 1 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use includes a number of trails, including trails providing access to offsite locations. As explained on page A-4 of Appendix A, the Nature Center Use would provide educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture, the natural environment, and the sustainability of the region. Response CL -29-D The commenters state that they would offer to build consensus around the project, if an agreeable civic use is decided upon, and make a general reference to linkages across Temecula Creek and regarding I-15. This comment is noted. This comment does not state a specific concern about the adequacy of the DEIR and a response is thus not required pursuant to CEQA. 41 149439 13 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM USFWS AND CDFW FEBRUARY 14, 2017 Response CL -30-A The commenters state that they are writing in support of preserving the 55 -acre South Parcel in a natural state, and provide a list of benefits that the USFWS and CDFW (the Wildlife Agencies) believe would be achieved through preservation of the site in its natural state, which are more particularly described in later comments within the letter. The commenters also refer to their previous comments on the Draft EIR and re -state that they have concerns with the project. The comment does not identify any deficiency in the Draft EIR. The previous comments submitted by the Wildlife Agencies on the Draft EIR are addressed in the Final EIR Responses to Comments. As described in the Final EIR, as well as in previous responses to comments in this Technical Memorandum, in response to public comments received on the Draft EIR the City Council directed City Staff to evaluate an alternative use for the South Parcel known as the Nature Center Use, which would consist of one or more buildings developed to a maximum of 20,000 square feet and a two-story maximum building height. The Nature Center pad elevation would be about 50 feet higher than current conditions. In addition, similar to the proposed project, this altemative land use would preserve a significant amount of the Civic Site as open space, available as habitat and passive recreation. Implementation of the Nature Center land use would result in a 95 percent or greater reduction of the maximum allowable building size and a 60 percent reduction in the maximum building height. In addition, the Nature Center Use would limit the amount of permitted uses on the site to just this land use. As described in the FEIR and in Appendix A to the FEIR, the Nature Center Use would reduce impacts to the mountain lion as well as wildlife corridors. Specific responses to the issues concerning MSHCP consistency, Linkages 10 and 14, mountain lion impacts, and conservation of pond turtle habitat are addressed in Responses CL -30-B to CL - 30 -F. Response CL -30-B The commenters state that the Project was found to be inconsistent with the MSHCP by the Westem Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the USFWS, and CDFW because it proposes development in an area primarily described for conservation and is therefore inconsistent with the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly Criteria. This comment was previously raised in comments on the Draft EIR. A Common Response to these issues is provided in the Final EIR in Common Responses 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.8. As provided in the Draft EIR, and explained in Common Response 3.2.3, the project's biologists undertook a detailed analysis of the Project's consistency with the MSHCP at the Area Plan, Subunit, and Cell/Cell Group levels ("2015 Consistency Report"). (DEIR, Appx. C3.) As explained in the DEIR and based on independent review by the City and its biological expert consultant, it was determined that while the Project does not meet specific Criteria Cell acreage goals in every Cell, the Project would not preclude achievement of reserve assembly target 42 1194639.13 acreages in either Subunit 1 or Subunit 6 due to the availability of other undeveloped and rural residential lands for conservation. (DEIR, p. 3.3-64.) In particular, the analysis concluded that the midpoint acreage targets for Subunit 1 could still be exceeded by as much as 163 acres (15 percent) and for Subunit 6 could be exceeded by as much as 712 acres (34 percent) with available conservation in both subunits following implementation of the Project as proposed (DEIR, Appx. C p. 43), and that the Project would meet overall conservation goals for Proposed Linkage 10. (Id., p. 45.) Thus, the DEIR measured the Project's consistency with reserve target acreages on an Area Plan Subunit basis and the project as designed and mitigated is consistent with the adopted MSHCP. Response CL -30-C The commenters state that the size and location of the Project significantly narrows Proposed Linkage 10 and Linkage 14 at critical points and has the potential to significantly negatively affect the movement of mountain lions between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges and would negatively affect the MSHCP Conservation Area as a whole. The commenters also claim that a MSHCP Criteria Refinement is required if the Project is to be developed as proposed. The commenters also refer to the RCA's Joint Project Review (JPR) findings on the Project regarding MSCHP Cells 7355 and 7356. Finally, the commenters re -state the claim that a criteria refinement is needed. These issues were previously raised in comments on the Draft EIR. A Common Response to these issues is provided in the Final EIR in Common Responses 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.7, and 3.2.8. In addition, as provided in Response CL -30-A, and as described in the Final EIR, the alternative Nature Center Use for the South Parcel would further reduce impacts to the mountain lion as well as wildlife corridors. Response CL -30-D The commenters state that development of the South Parcel has the potential to remove suitable upland western pond turtle habitat, a MSHCP Planning Species for Linkages 13 and 14. The Commenters note that MSHCP Conservation Objectives #2 and #5 for the pond turtle specify maintaining occupancy in 75% of 8 listed Core Areas and that Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek are two of the Core Areas listed for this species. They commenters also claim that the proposed grading for a development pad on the South Parcel would extend nearly to the edge of the creek and would remove nesting and overwintering habitat. Information regarding the analysis of impacts to the Western Pond Turtle is provided in Section I above under Response CL -28-P. As provided in that Response, while generally the western pond turtle is known to use upland areas, the specific site conditions at the Project Site preclude usage of upland areas on the South Parcel by the species. The presence of steep terrain along the portion of Murrieta Creek bordering the South Parcel likely precludes turtle usage in the area adjacent to the development footprint for either the University/Hospital Use or the Nature Center Use. Thus, no impacts to western pond turtles are anticipated on the South Parcel under either alternative. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to WPT are less than significant. (See FEIR, pp. 2-8-2-9.) 43 1494639. 13 CL -30-E The commenters state concerns regarding placement of hiking trails within MSHCP linkages and specifically on the South Parcel. The commenters claim that the development of an interpretive center and hiking trails on the South Parcel, while less damaging than an institutional campus, would still attract human use into an area that currently provides live-in habitat for pond turtles and mountain lions that is intended to act as a linkage in the MSHCP conservation configuration and that human presence will discourage mountain lion use from the crossing under Interstate 15. The DEIR analyzed the potential for both direct and indirect impacts the project may have on the mountain lion, both for the project site as well as within the larger context of the MSHCP Plan Area. This assessment includes the direct loss of habitat, potential indirect impacts associated with increased human presence such as lighting, noise, and increased access to open space (such as hiking trails), potential impacts to linkages, and potential for further genetic isolation of the mountain lion in the Santa Ana Mountains. As provided in the DEIR, the project would impact wildlife corridors identified in the MSHCP, including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, through reduction in width and the effects of urban/wildlife interaction; however, it would not preclude the use of these linkages for wildlife movement. (DEIR, p. 3.3- 45.) The South Parcel falls within both Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, and would be set back approximately 900 feet from the Santa Margarita River. This linkage area provides an east -west connection that crosses beneath 1-15 along the Santa Margarita River that was assumed to maintain the gene pool and genetic diversity of the mountain lion population on both sides of the freeway as part of the review and approval of the MSHCP. However, based on radio collar data evaluated in the DEIR, there may no longer be mountain lion movement underneath I- 15 at this location. Current evidence suggests that the mountain lion population is genetically isolated from populations east of I-15 (Vickers et. al. 2015; Ernest et. al. 2014). In addition, there is a 100 -foot vertical cliff between the Santa Margarita riverbed and the South Parcel situated on the plateau above. Future buildings on the South Parcel would not be directly visible from the Santa Margarita River bottom. In addition, the project applicant will construct a 10 -foot tall berm and landscape buffer along the southern portion of the South Parcel, as part of the project, to screen adjacent conserved lands. (DEIR, p. 3.3-49.) Under the Nature Center Use, the southern end of Proposed Linkage 10 would be increased by 150 feet as a result of the shortened length of the graded pad. In addition, with the lower intensity use of the Nature Center Use and the elimination of nighttime activities, this use would enhance wildlife movement over the Civic Center Use. Information regarding the analysis of impacts to the Western Pond Turtle is provided in Section 1 above under Response CL -28-P as well as in Response CL -30-D. The specific site conditions at the Project Site preclude usage of upland areas on the South Parcel by western pond turtle. Thus, no impacts to western pond turtles are anticipated on the South Parcel under either the Civic Center Use or the Nature Center Use. Additions have been made to the EIR to further support 44 1494639.13 and clarify the DEIR's conclusion that impacts to WPT are less than significant. (See FEIR, pp. 2-8-2-9.) Finally, the commenters are also referred to Final EIR Common Response 3.2.8. CL -30-F The commenters refer to their previous comment letters on the Draft EIR to re -state that the increased noise, traffic, human activity, and risk of trespass are not adequately analyzed or mitigated by the proposed mitigation measures of berms, directional lighting, and vegetation for development of the South Parcel. The commenters state that impacts to pond turtle, mountain lion, and the linkage were not adequately addressed or mitigated in the Draft EIR. The commenters are referred to Final EIR Responses to Comments 3-A to 3-K, which correspond to the responses to the joint letter submitted by the Wildlife Agencies on the Draft EIR. With respect to mountain lion and pond turtle, the commenters are referred to Response CL -30-E above. CL -30-G The commenters summarize the points previously raised in the letter stating that they support conservation of the site to meet MSHCP goals and maintain the integrity of Linkages 10 and 14. The comment is noted for the record. Responses to specific issues summarized in this comment are provided above in Responses CL -30-A through CL -30-F. 45 1494639.13 RESPONSE TO EMAIL COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM EHL FEBRUARY 14, 2017 Response CL -31-A The commenter states that it reaches a different conclusion than the letter from USFWS and CDFW, dated February 14, 2017, regarding the compatibility with the Temecula Creek corridor with a small and peripherally sited interpretive center and trails for daytime use. This comment is noted. This comment appears to disagree with CL -30-E, which is addressed in Response CL -30-E above. Response CL -31-B The commenter states that, based upon conversations with mountain -lion specialists, the intrusion of noise, light, and activity during nocturnal hours inhibits corridor use by mountain lions the most. The commenter does not anticipate use of the interpretive facility at night. The commenter is referred to Response CL -30-E above. In particular, as stated in Response CL - 30 -E, the project would not preclude use of wildlife corridors identified in the MSHCP. As further stated in Response CL -30-E, the Nature Center Use would be a lower -intensity use and eliminate nighttime activities, thus increasing wildlife movement in comparison to the Civic Center Use. Response CL -31-C The commenter states that elimination of recreational use in a natural area immediately adjacent to a medium-sized city is not realistic, and that the real choice is between unregulated and regulated recreation. The commenter lists a properly designed trail system, signage, education, and interpretation as ways to regulate recreation, and states that proper outreach and education makes it possible to work with groups such as mountain bikers as long as some trails are provided. The commenter is referred to Response CL -30-E and Response CL -29-C above. In addition, as explained on pages A-5 to A-6 of Appendix A to the FEIR, the Nature Center Use would create 1.15 miles of new trails, and provide educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture, the natural environment, and the sustainability of the region. Response CL -31-D The commenter states that ideally little or no recreation or human activity would occur within important corridors, but that carefully controlled use is preferred in this peri -urban location. The commenter states that, if limited open spaces are used, it would urge ongoing coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority and the Wildlife Agencies on procedures for MSHCP consistency. 46 1494639.❑ This comment is noted. This comment appears to be in response to CL -30-E, which is addressed in Response CL -30-E above. 47 1494639.13 40 1494639.13 Beanuse fire gooa SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 Via Electronic Mail and USPS (w/attachments) Matt Peters City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 matt.petersac itvo ftemecu la.org Comment Letter 28 Cougar Connection Re: Altair Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mr. Peters: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the "Center"), the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Cougar Connection (collectively, the "Conservation Groups") regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). The Project is anticipated to result in many significant environmental impacts that will degrade the current ecosystems on the Project site, interfere with mountain lion movement, and reduce the health and quality of life in the surrounding community. Yet, the CEQA mandated environmental review for the Project is wholly inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the statute. For the reasons detailed below, we urge approval of the Project be denied, or at the very least substantial revisions to the DEIR to better analyze, mitigate or avoid the Project's significant environmental impacts. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over one million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Riverside County. The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of over 700,000 members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club reports that over 190,000 members reside in California. The San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club focuses on issues within the inland empire, including Riverside County. 28-A Alaska . Arizona . California . Florida . Minnesota . Nevada . New Mexico. New York . Oregon . Vermont. Washington, DC P.O. Box 710. Tucson, AZ 85702-0710 tel: (520) 623.5252 fax: (520) 623.9797 wwwBiologicalDiversily.org Comment Letter 28 Cougar Connection is a non-profit, public interest organization that is dedicated to the preservation of Puma concolor, Cougar populations. open space, wildlife connectivity, and public education. I. The Current Project Description Does Not Represent The True Scope Of The Project And Is Misleading. T Under CEQA, a "project" is defined as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ...." (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1222 (citing CEQA Guidelines § 15378, subd. (a).) An "accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (Cnty. of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193; (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 (project description held unstable and misleading) [hereinafter "San Joaquin Raptor"].) "However, a curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input." (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.). An inaccurate or truncated project description is prejudicial error because it fails to "adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project." (See City of Santee v. Cnty. of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454-55 [hereinafter "City of Santee"].) "Only through an accurate view of the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project's benefits against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives." (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.) Here, the Project Description for the South Parcel is unstable. The Project Description does not specify what will be developed on the South Parcel, and instead lists a number of potential uses, such as an educational facility, office/research facility, convention center, hospital, or cultural center. Each of these potential uses presents unique impacts to the environmental and local community. Consequently, the DEIR provides no firm basis to assess the environmental costs and appropriate mitigation measures of the Project. (San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App.4th, at 655.) Traffic impacts will vary depending upon the nature and extent of civic uses at the site. In turn, the amount of traffic — including truck traffic — is a key factor affecting the extent to which the Project will contribute to increased air pollution. Moreover, the noise and light impacts of the Project will vary depending upon the actual development on South Parcel — for example, a hospital may result in emergency vehicles entering and exiting the hospital in both the daytime and nighttime. The sirens and flashing lights of these vehicles will interfere with the behavior and movement patterns of nocturnal wildlife, such as mountains lions. Yet, the DEIR fails to analyze or disclose any of the impacts of these foreseeable uses. As such, the DEIR fails to inform decision -makers and the public of the true scope of the Project from which all interested parties could assess the direct and indirect environmental effects of the Project. (City of Santee, 214 Cal.App.3d, at 1454-55; San Joaquin Raptor, 149 2 28-A 28-B 28-C Comment Letter 28 Cal.App.4th, 655; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 83-86.) II. The Project Is Not Consistent With The General Plan. T Land use decisions must be consistent with all applicable land use policies, including the General Plan and all of its elements. (See Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (201 1) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1562-1563.) Unfortunately, the Project is clearly inconsistent with multiple General Plan policies, as set forth below. A. Development of the Western Escarpment violates Community Design Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, among others. The Community Design Element contains the following policies: (a) Policy 5.1 requires the protection of hillside areas from inappropriate development that effects the visual backdrop of the valley; (b) Policy 5.2 requires the retention of critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space on the west edge of the City; (c) Policy 5.3 requires the establishment of a program to permanently protect critical hillside areas from development. The Open Space/Conservation element similarly contains Policy 5.1, which states that the Western Escarpment must be conserved through the development review process. The Project is directly at odds with these goals because it will result in intensive development of a substantial portion of the Western Escarpment. (See RCA Letter at 6 ("The project site is currently undeveloped and located ... in an area known as the `escarpment'.. . .").) The DEIR claims consistency with these policies by noting that the Project would retain 85 acres of land as open space. (DEIR at 3.9-1 1.) Retaining a mere 85 acres in light of the 270 -acre Project is inconsistent with these policies. B. The Project violates Open Space and Conservation Element Policies 3.2, 3.3, and 3.7, and Land Use Element Policy 6.3, among others. Conservation Element Policies 3.2 and 3.3 require that the City coordinate with relevant agencies in conserving biological resources and implementing the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"). (DEIR at 3.3-9.) As set forth below, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") — which implements and enforces the MSHCP — has informed the City in no uncertain terms that the Project will not be consistent with the implementation of the MSHCP. As such, the City is not coordinating with the RCA, but is instead frustrating the ability of the RCA to do its job. The DEIR does not set forth any facts demonstrating that it was coordinated with RCA, but instead offers the conclusory statement that "the project has coordinated with the County and the RCA regarding the implementation of the MSHCP." (DEIR at 3.9-14.) The Project also is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policy 3.7 and Land Use Element Policy 6.3. which requires the maintenance and enhancement of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River to ensure long-term viability of wildlife movement corridors. The DEIR concedes that the Project "could" impede wildlife movement at 3 28-C 28-D 28-E Comment Letter 28 the intersection of Santa Margarita River and Murrieta Creek, but conclusorily asserts that the inadequate mitigation measures discussed below will render it consistent. (DEIR at 3.9-14.) As noted below, RCA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") all dispute this conclusion. The Project also violates Implementation Program OS -9, which requires that all development proposals in MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages "provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance." (DEIR at 3.3-4.) Similarly, Implementation Programs OS -33, OS -34, and OS -35 require that all developments be consistent with the MSHCP. (DEIR at 3.3-5.) As discussed further in section VII, the enforcing agencies have concluded that (a) the Project is not consistent with the MSHCP; (b) the DEIR does not provide adequate biological assessments; and (c) the DEIR fails to mitigate significant impacts. C. The DEIR does not adequately explain the Project's consistency with other general plan policies. In Table 3.9-4, the DEIR attempts to claim consistency with all applicable general plan policies. Unfortunately, Table 3.9-4 does not explain in any detail how the Project is consistent with these various policies, and instead generally refers to mitigation measures. The DEIR also fails to offer any analysis regarding some policies, and instead states "Not applicable," without any explanation as to why these policies are not applicable. (See, e.g., DEIR at 3.9-12, 3.9-16, 3.9-19.) III. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze The Impacts To Aesthetics. The Aesthetics section of the DEIR contains numerous deficiencies and inaccuracies. For instance, the DEIR claims that the City "planned for development at the Project site and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space." (DEIR at 3.1-17.) This is misleading. The DEIR is correct that the Westside Specific Plan was approved by the City in 1995, and that the Plan would have permitted mixed used development adjacent to the Project site. (DEIR at 1- 1.) However, the City's 2005 General Plan contains the policies discussed above, which prohibit development on the Western Escarpment. To the extent that the Westside Specific Plan conflicts with the 2005 General Plan, the 2005 General Plan supersedes the Westside Specific Plan. (See Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 541 (a land use planning decision that was originally consistent with the general plan but has become inconsistent must be brought into conformity with the general plan).) The DEIR does not set forth adequate measures to mitigate the substantial light pollution caused by the Project. While the DEIR proposes a number of mitigation measures such as directing nighttime construction light downward (see DEIR at 3.1-18), there is no way to mitigation the light impacts of installing thousands of people in an undeveloped wildlife area. The DEIR fails to cite any studies or biological opinions indicating that the meagre mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to mitigate impacts on wildlife. (See DEIR 3.1-19.) 28-E 28-F 28-G Comment Letter 28 Furthermore, the aesthetic simulations in Figure 3.1-2 and Figure 3.1-3 do not appear to be accurate. These figures appear to downplay the actual size of the development, and also do not specify whether these figures depict the Project with a four to five story buildout, as discussed in the Project Description section. The figures also appear to have omitted to the Western Bypass. In any event, the DEIR is wrong in claiming that scenic views of the hills and Western Escarpment will not be impacted by the Project. (See DEIR 3.1-17.) The DEIR admits as much sentences later, when it states that "the visual character of the project site would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high-density urbanized development." (Id.) Contrary to the DEIR's unfounded conclusion, such intensive development on the Western Escarpment cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels by "[a]dherence to the design guidelines and development standards ..... (See DEIR at 3.1-18.) IV. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze The Project's Impacts On Air Quality. The DEIR's air quality impacts analysis is flawed because it fails to take into account all sources of air quality impacts resulting from the Project and fails to adopt all feasible measures to reduce the Project's significant air quality impacts. Californians experience the worst air quality in the nation, with annual health and economic impacts estimated at 8,800 deaths and $71 billion per year. (Cayan 2006.) The Project will further degrade the region's air quality by generating considerable emissions from the construction phase, ongoing operations, and the many miles of vehicle trips generated by the Project. In particular, the DETR's significance analysis is flawed because it uses the "Localized Significance Threshold" or "LST" methodology. (DEIR at 3.2-15.) This is not a proper threshold for this Project. According to South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), LSTs only apply to project that must undergo CEQA or NEPA review and "are five acres or less." I In contrast, the Project would develop at least 100 acres. The DEIR fails to disclose the origin of construction emissions data cited in the DEIR. More specifically, the DEIR sets forth a chart of "Proposed Regional Construction Emissions" with various statistics which are described as estimated maximum daily emissions. Yet, the DEIR does not explain how these statistics were calculated, and instead lists the source as "ESA, 2015." (DEIR at 3.2-21.) Some of these statistics do appear on PDF page 1062 of the Appendices to the DEIR, and PDF page 104 lists "assumptions" that were used, presumably in calculating these statistics. However, these "assumptions are not explained in any detail. For example, PDF page 104 lists an assumption of "2 mile trip." Does that mean that construction trips were calculated as being only 2 miles? PDF page 105 contains an assumption that the calculations include "internalization reduction," but does not describe this reduction or explain its basis. South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Localized Significance Thresholds," (available at http://www.agmd.gov/home/reeulations/cega/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresho Ids). 2 The Appendixes document does not include page numbers, such that citations refer to the PDF page number. 5 n 28-G 28-H 28-1 Comment Letter 28 A. The DEIR fails to disclose or analyze the impacts of the Project on sensitive populations. The DEIR does admit that the Project would result in emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and claims these significant impacts are "unavoidable." (DEIR at 3.2- 23.) The DEIR warns that the Project's ROG and NOx emission increases could contribute to "additional air quality violations" or result in air quality levels that are unhealthy for sensitive populations. (DEIR at 3.2-24.) Nonetheless, the DEIR does not include any analysis, studies, or surveys to disclose the extent of these impacts on sensitive populations. The failure to include such analysis is a serious error in the DEIR, given that the Project involves the installation of a freeway within a few feet of residential developments and within close proximity to Old Town Temecula. As discussed below, the DEIR indicates that residential development may occur within 45 feet of the "centerline of the Western Bypass" (DEIR at 3.10- 45), meaning that residential development may occur immediately next to the Bypass, with no buffer. The Western Bypass also will be sited in very close proximity to the proposed elementary school, which will be occupied by approximately 700 children. Each of these 700 children are classified as "sensitive receptors." Numerous studies have documented the air pollution and health impacts associated with siting expressways and freeways in close proximity to residential development, particularly upon sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. (Lin 2000.) Nonetheless, the DEIR fails to offer any analysis of these significant impacts associated with the Project. B. The DEIR does not require all feasible measures to mitigate the air quality impacts of the Project. In light of these major air quality impacts, "the EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures that will minimize the significant environmental effects that the EIR has identified." (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 360.) CEQA requires that agencies "mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002. l (b).) Mitigation of a project's significant impacts is one of the "most important" functions of CEQA. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41.) Only when the mitigation measures are "truly infeasible" can the lead agency reject mitigation measures for significant impacts. (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 369.) Here, despite acknowledging that the Project will result in significant air quality impacts, the Project includes only six mitigation measures (MM -AQ -la through MM -AQ -le and MM - AQ -2), most of which provide few specific details and lack adequate enforcement mechanisms. (DEIR at 3.2-23 — 3.2-28.) Mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures" so "that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development." (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass 'ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.) Potential harmful environmental impacts from the mitigation measures, effectiveness of the mitigation measures and important specifics on implementation of the mitigation measures are all missing from the DEIR. Without the 6 28-J 28-K Comment Letter 28 incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures, the DEIR mitigation measures are insufficient and inadequate. The DEIR also fails to analyze and adopt all feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the admittedly significant air quality impacts of the Project. In particular, the DEIR fails to perform even a cursory analysis of available mitigation measures for reducing air quality impacts, such as those provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association and California Office of the Attorney General to reduce GHG emissions, which also facilitate the reduction of criteria pollutants. (Attorney General 2010; CAPCOA 2008). Those mitigation measures, as well as others, should be analyzed as a means to reduce the significant air quality impacts and fully adopted if feasible. For example, MM AQ-ld states that buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that render them 15 percent more efficient than the 2013 Building Standards. (DEIR at 3.2-24.) However, the 2016 Building Standards, which are effective on January 1, 2017 already require that buildings are 28 percent more efficient the 2013 Building Standards.3 Thus, MM AQ -Id is not even as stringent as existing law. MM AQ 2 similarly will do little to mitigate air pollution or protect sensitive populations from health impacts. The DEIR admits that construction emissions may cause significant impacts to sensitive receptors, but does not attempt to quantify these impacts. (DEIR at 3.2-27.) The DEIR claims that MM AQ 2 — which requires watering of the construction site — will render these impacts less than significant. The DEIR fails to cite any studies or analysis supporting this conclusion that mere watering will reduce such impacts to less than significance. C. The DEIR fails to cite substantial evidence in claiming that consistency with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan renders the Project consistent with the AQMP. The DEIR claims that (I) because the Southern California Association of Governments' ("SCAG") regional growth forecasts are based upon regional land use plans, then a project that is consistent with regional land use plans is consistent with SCAG; (2) if a Project is consistent with SCAG, then it is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"). (DEIR at 3.2-15 & 3.2-20.) The FEIR fails to cite any authority supporting the proposition that mere consistency with regional land use plans equates to consistency with the AQMP. Even if compliance with regional land use plans equated to compliance with the AQMP, the DEIR still is required to disclose, explain, and analyze such purported consistency. 'See California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions, (available at httn://www.energy.cagov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016 Building Enerev Efficiency Standar ds FAQ.ndf). 7 28-K 28-L Comment Letter 28 V. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze Or Mitigate The Impacts Of The Project On Biological Resources. The DEIR must analyze and mitigation all impacts on special status species, including CDFW species of special concern. The CDFW defines a species of special concern as a species that, among other things, "is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status."4 CDFW aims to "achieve conservation and recovery of these animals before they meet California Endangered Species Act criteria for listing as threatened or endangered." (Id.) CDFW states that species of special concern "should be considered during the environmental review process." (Id.; CEQA Guidelines § 15380(b)(B).) An impact to wildlife is significant where it "substantially reduce[s] the number or restrict[s] the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) CDFW interprets this provision to apply to species of special concern. The City must mitigate significant effects whenever feasible. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 2 I 080.5(d)(2)(A).) The DEIR fails to adequately mitigate impacts to special status species because it does not even analyze or disclose those impacts. For example, the DEIR lists various special status species that were "not detected during various biological surveys" even though suitable habitat occurs the site. (See Table 3.3-3.) The DEIR never explains whether the surveyors were searching for these species or whether they were qualified to identify them. The DEIR even admits that many of these species have a "high" potential to occur on the Site; thus, there is a high potential they inhabit the site even if they were not observed during a survey. A. The DEIR fails to disclose, analyze, or mitigate the Project's impacts on special status plant species. San Diego ambrosia. The DEIR claims that suitable onsite habitat for the San Diego ambrosia is "limited," but concedes that 300 San Diego ambrosia individuals were mapped on the central portion of the site. (DEIR 3.3-12.) The DEIR claims these plants will be "transferred," but does not indicate to where they will be transferred. (DEIR 3.3-36.) This mitigation measure is therefore impermissibly vague. More importantly, this mitigation measure is unenforceable because the DEIR characterizes this translocation effort as a "voluntarily" commitment. (DEIR at 2-20.) Paniculate tarplant. The DEIR reports that Paniculate tarplant were observed on the Northern portion of the site, but does not provide any detail on how many individuals were observed. (DEIR 3.3-12.) The DEIR claims that impacts will be "less than significant" even though the Project will be destroying an unspecified number of Paniculate tarplant individuals. ((DEIR 3.3-36.) This conclusion is not based upon substantial evidence because destruction of a special status species or its habitat qualifies as a significant impact. Nonetheless, the DEIR offers absolutely no mitigation measures to limit this impact. ° See California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern (available at httos://www.wildli fe.ca. gov/Conservation/SSC/). 28-M 28-N Comment Letter 28 The DEIR also lists various special status plants that were "not found during various biological surveys." (See Table 3.3-2.) However, the DEIR does not indicate whether the surveyors were looking for these specific types of plants or qualified to identify them. This is a serious problem with the DEIR, given that the DEIR concedes that the site contains suitable habitat for these special status plants. (See Table 3.3-2.) B. The DEIR fails to set forth adequate or enforceable mitigation measures to protect special status birds. The DEIR concedes that the Project will have significant impacts on special status birds such as Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark. (DEIR at (3.3-36.) However, MM -BIO -1 only requires that clearing activities take place outside of breeding season "to the extent feasible." (Id.) As a preliminary matter, the DEIR fails to state whether the specified February 1 to September 15 date range is in fact the breeding season for all four special status bird species. Moreover, if clearing activities do take place during breeding season, the claimed 300 -foot construction setback can be altered to any length decided by a "qualified biologist." This does not specify what qualifications a biologist will have, or whether the biologist will be an expert on the bird species at issue. Even these setbacks can be ignored if "not feasible," in which case "noise attenuation devices may be installed ..... (DEIR at 3.3- 37.) MM -BIO -1 thus makes every accommodation for the developer if protection of special status birds is "not feasible," but nonetheless comes to the false conclusion that impacts would be "less than significant." More importantly, the broader issue that the Project will be destroying the habitat of these birds is never adequately addressed. Likewise, the DEIR sets forth weak steps to protect the burrowing owl, even as it admits that burrowing owls may be killed during construction activities. (DEIR at 3.3-37.) The DEIR ignores the fact that the Project would be forever destroying habitat for the burrowing owl. The DEIR claims that any burrowing owls onsite will be translocated, but fails to provide any facts suggesting that such translocation will be successful. (DEIR at 3.3-38.) In fact, there have been very few — if any — successful translocation projects for burrowing owls. In addition, while translocation could minimize immediate direct take of burrowing owls, ultimately the burrowing owls' available habitat is reduced, and relocated birds are forced to compete for resources with other resident burrowing owls and may move into less suitable habitat, ultimately resulting in "take." Additionally, the mitigation measures needs to explicitly include long-term monitoring of passively relocated birds in order to evaluate survivorship of relocated birds. The DEIR fails to take any steps to mitigate impacts on the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the yellow warbler, which is a species of special concern. (Table 3.3- 3.) This constitutes a serious deficiency in the DEIR because both species have been documented on the Project Site, and will accordingly suffer habitat loss if the Project moves forward. 9 28-N 28-0 Comment Letter 28 C. The DEIR fails to set forth adequate or enforceable mitigation measures to protect other aquatic species, such as the Western Pond Turtle. The DEIR notes the Site's proximity to Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River, but does not contain an adequate discussion of aquatic species that may inhabit the streams or adjacent land. For instance, the DEIR only notes in passing the importance of maintaining water quality for the Western Pond Turtle ("WPT"). The WPT is never mentioned in the DEIR again, even in the section on Riparian/Riverine wildlife. (See DEIR at 3.3-31.) The only mention of the WPT comes in the MSCHP Consistency Report, which claims that no WPT or California red -legged frog ("CRLF") habitat will be impacted because the Project "lies entirely outside Murrieta Creek." (Appx. C at 34.) This is false because the WPT regularly occupy areas outside of creeks, as discussed below. The WPT uses upland habitat for hibernation and refuge. WPT also make wide-ranging use of their aquatic habitat, sometimes migrating more than one kilometer per year. (Pilliod et al. at 207.) WPT are listed as species of special concern because their numbers have decreased due to increasing habitat destruction and disturbance, especially from farming operations, and depredation from invasive species, such as bullfrogs and bass. (Jennings et al. (1994); Spinks et al. (2003); Pilliod et al. (2013).) Despite the WPT's use of both aquatic and upland habitat— which would constitute portions of the Project area — the DEIR fails to analyze, disclose, or mitigate impacts on WPT. Similarly, the DEIR claims that no suitable habitat occurs within the Project area for CRLF, Arroyo Toad ("AT"), or Mountain Yellow Legged Frog ("MYLF"). However, the DEIR does provide any facts, biological opinions, or surveys supporting this claim. Contrary to the DEIR, the Federal Register indicates that the Santa Margarita River and Temecula Creek both contain critical habitat for the toad.5 D. The DEIR's other mitigation measures are vague, unenforceable, and/or illusory. The DEIR does not set forth adequate mitigation measures to protect wildlife from polluted runoff. The DEIR merely states the Project will comply with applicable NPDES permits, and that "measures" shall be implemented to avoid discharge of untreated runoff. (DEIR at 3.3-32.) This is unenforceable and vague. The DEIR also does not comply with the request by the RCA that measures should be implemented to "avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas," including Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. (RCA Letter at 9.) Likewise, the DEIR contains no specific mitigation measures to safeguard wildlife from toxic chemicals generated by the Project. The DEIR again only promises that unspecified "measures" will ensure that toxic chemicals are not discharged into MSHCP Conservation Areas. (DEIR at 3.3-32.) The DEIR contains similarly vague mitigation measures to protect MSHCP Conservation areas from lighting, noise, and invasive species. (DEIR at 3.3-33.) 5 See Department of Interior, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad; Final Rule (Feb. 9, 201 1) 76 Fed. Reg. at 7249, 7264, 7308 (available at https://www. ppo.Rov/fdsys/pkp/FR-201 1-02-09/pd f/20 I I -1703. pd f ). 10 28-P 28-Q Comment Letter 28 By the same token, the DEIR vaguely states that "Project impacts" could result in the Project being inconsistent with Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, and then lists a variety of mitigation measures that have limited or no relevance to the Guidelines. The DEIR should list each Guideline and explain how the DEIR will be complying with it. E. Neither the City nor the Applicant conducted adequate surveys for endangered species. The DEIR states that no surveys were conducted for amphibian or mammal species because the site is not in a Criteria Area Species Survey Area ("CASSA"). (DEIR at 3.3-34.) Whether the site is located in a CASSA is irrelevant to the City's duty to ascertain the environmental baseline under CEQA. The DEIR further states that various riparian plant species — including Lemon lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Parish's meadowfoam, Santa Ana River woolly -star, and Brand's phacelia — occur outside the site and were not observed on the site. However, the DEIR does not provide any information as to whether suitable habitat exists on the site for these plant species. In addition, the DEIR does not indicate whether the surveyors were qualified to identify these species, or were looking for them. The DEIR nevertheless discounts the importance of these species and concludes that "These species are not discussed further in this EIR." (DEIR at 3.3-30.) F. The DEIR fails to adequately mitigate impacts on riparian habitat because the City has not prepared a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). The DEIR states that the Project will "permanently impact" 1.24 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat. (DEIR at 3.3-40.) The DEIR does not specify how these impacts would be mitigated, except that the Project would prepare a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP") per the MSHCP and a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan if required by CDFW. The DEIR states that specific mitigation activities — such as offsite habitat restoration of purchase of credits from a mitigation bank — would be determined through "discussions with the City, USFWS, and CDFW." (DEIR at 3.3-41.) This impermissibly defers mitigation. The DEIR similarly claims that MM -BIO -4b would require the preparation of a DBESP to address impacts to riparian habitat, but does not specify how the Project will actually comply with this DBESP. In particular, MM -BIO -4b states that the DBESP will include a "written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects" — this does not provide the public with adequate detail regarding this proposed mitigation measure, or explain whether the author of the DBESP has any authority to require mitigation measures necessary to keep impacts to less than significant levels. The City's refusal to prepare a DBESP is inexcusable because the RCA already requested a DBESP two years ago on November 10, 2014. (RCA Letter at 7.) The RCA also found various deficiencies with the HELIX's report; HELIX's report fails to (a) provide an "analysis of II 28-Q 28-R 28-S Comment Letter 28 the functions and values of the riparian and riverine resources on-site as required by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP" (RCA Letter at 8); (b) analyze the Project's impacts on Conserved Habitats or riparian species listed in section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, which include the AT, MYLF, and CRLF; (RCA Letter at 8); and (c) analyze the "biological equivalency of the mitigation relative to the functions and values of the riparian impacts on-site as is required in a DBESP." (RCA Letter at 8.) The RCA concluded that the failure to submit a DBESP renders the Project inconsistent with section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The Conservation Groups share the RCA's concerns and agree with the RCA's conclusion. MM -BIO -4b also defers specifying any ratios for mitigating riparian habitat and claims such ratios will be determined during the wetland permitting process. (DEIR at 3.3-43.) Similarly, the DEIR does not explain whether any specific mitigation measures will be implemented to protect onsite wetlands, and instead refers back to MM-13IO-4a and MM -BIO - 4b, and generally states that a section 404 permit will be required. G. The DEIR fails to adequately mitigate impacts on sensitive natural communities. The DEIR claims that impacts on sensitive natural communities will be mitigated to less than significant because the developer will be mitigation fees as determined by the City and the Project will "conserve" at least 82.77 acres in Criteria Cells. (DEIR at 3.3-45.) However, there is no evidence in the record indicating that this paltry amount of "conservation" will mitigate the extensive impacts of installing hundreds of houses on undeveloped land. VI. The Project Will Severely Constrict Wildlife Corridors And Interfere With Mountain Lion Movement. Dr. Winston Vickers — a well-known mountain lion expert — has already repeatedly informed the City of the serious impacts on mountain lion movement of the Project as proposed. He sent you an email on November 6, 2014, and wrote: 1 wanted to write to make sure that my professional opinion relating to the proposed Altair development is clear to all the parties.... the development is highly likely to reduce use of the escarpment by mountain lions. Adult resident males and adult females without kittens are expected to be negatively impacted to the greatest degree (significantly reduce use or stop using, especially certain behaviors), with similar negative impacts also expected for females with kittens and young dispersing animals but to a lesser degree than for adult males and females without kittens. Nevertheless, significantly reduced use is expected for a distance of a [sic] least 150 meters from the development for all classes, and for the entire escarpment for some. Development of the southernmost pad area is expected to have the most negative impact, especially on mountain lion use of the escarpment just north of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. Movement in Temecula Creek toward the Temecula Creek bridge beneath 1-15 may also be negatively impacted by development at the southern -most site. Since this bridge is the only currently (possibly) functional safe passage under 1-15 for mountain lions that is likely to allow introduction of critically needed fresh genetic 12 28-S 28-T 28-U Comment Letter 28 material into the Santa Ana mountain lion population (and genetic exchange the other direction), any further reduction in its potential functionality is unwise at best.... The CDFW wrote separately to you on December 15, 2014 to reiterate the concerns expressed in Mr. Vicker's email. (See DEIR, Appx. A at PDF p. 80.) CDFW further stated that it expected the City to consult with Mr. Vickers. (Id.). The DEIR's conclusions regarding mountain lion movement are not supported by substantial evidence. The DEIR cites a study published by Dr. Vickers which found that impermeable barriers to mountain lion movements result in genetic restriction and demographic isolation of mountain lions. (DEIR at 3.3-47.) The DEIR concedes that both Dr. Vickers and HELIX anticipate reduction in overall suitable of Proposed Linkage 10 due to reduction in linkage width, and that reproductive behaviors would be most negatively impacted, or possibly eliminated. (DEIR at 3.3-49 & 50.) Nonetheless, the DEIR concludes that the Project would not preclude use of the Proposed Linkage 10. (DEIR at 3.3-52.) The only support for this "not preclude" finding is HELIX's "corridor" model. Yet, Figure 3.3-4 shows heavy use by mountain lions of the Project Site, as well as Linkages 10, 13, and 14. The utility of HELIX's corridor model is unclear, given that substantial data already exists which demonstrates that these areas are in fact used by mountain lions. The utility of HELIX's model further is questionable because the model presumes habitat suitability and habitat permeability are synonymous, even though they are not. (DEIR at 3.3-48.) In addition, the HELIX model does not determine whether a linkage is "viable," but merely where the "best locations are" based on the model. (DEIR at 3.3-48.) The conclusions of the HELIX study and model also should be rejected because none of the authors have demonstrated that they have any expertise or experience in studying mountain lions. The need to preserve the existing wildlife corridors is particularly great in light of the threats that the Santa Ana mountain lions are facing. A peer-reviewed study co-authored by Dr. Vickers concluded that Santa Ana mountain (ions have some of the lowest genetic diversity of all mountain lions in California. (Ernest et al. (2014).) The study warned that connectivity between the Santa Ana range and inland ranges may continue to be eroded by development near the 1-15 corridor. (Id.) The genetic diversity of the Santa Ana mountain lions will be further eroded if this Project moves forward, which may lead to the extinction of this population. The Santa Monica mountain lions are already facing imminent extinction because development frustrates their ability to maintain movement and genetic diversity.6 None of the proposed mitigation measures will ensure that mountain lions are able to continue to use the wildlife corridors in Linkages 10, 13, and 14. For example, MM -BIO -3 prohibits the collection of plants and feeding of wildlife, and requires daily trash removal and limiting construction equipment idling to 45 minutes. (MM -Bio -3.) Even if these measures are strictly complied with, they do not address the fact that the Project will bring intensive development into a wildlife corridor. 6 See Los Angeles Times, "L.A.'s mountain lions could be near extinction in 50 years" (Aug. 31, 2015) (available at http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sc i-sn-mountain-lions-threat-20160830-snap-story.html). 13 28-U Comment Letter 28 MM -B10 -7b is unlikely to adequately protect mountain lions and other wildlife. MM- B1O-7b states that permanent fencing along the Western Bypass will keep animals within the wildlife corridor. (DEIR at 3.3-53.) However, the fencing plan has yet been developed, and there is no evidence in the DEIR that the fence will be tall enough to protect mountain lions from jumping over it. The City should require that a fencing system which is similar to the system installed on the 241 toll road be used on the Western Bypass — the 241 toll road fencing is 10 to 12 feet high and runs two feet into the ground to prevent mountain lions from digging under it. The fencing should also have exit points and ramps in the event that mountain lions do find themselves on the Western Bypass. By siting intensive development in a wildlife corridor used by mountain lions, the Project will result in conflicts between mountain lions and people. Such conflicts often result in the killing of mountain lions, which will further reduce the genetic diversity of mountain lions in the area. VII. The Project Cannot Be Approved Because The Wildlife Agencies Have Concluded That This Project Will Violate The MSHCP. The Project should be rejected by the City because the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW all agree that the Project will violate the MSHCP. The Project will significantly interfere with the functionality of MSHCP linkages and therefore frustrate movement of wildlife, including mountain lions. A. The RCA has concluded that the Project will violate the MSHCP. On April 1, 2015, the RCA sent detailed comments to the City on the Project as part of the Joint Project Review ("JPR") process (the "RCA Letter"). The RCA issued the following conclusions regarding the Project: • The Project would preclude Cell Criteria for Cell 7164 from being met by making it impossible to conserve the mid -point amount of 120 acres on the cell. (RCA Letter at 3.) • The Project would preclude Cell Criteria for Cell 7166 from being met by impacting all remaining acreage available for conservation. (RCA Letter at 3.) • The Project would preclude Cell Criteria for Cell 7264 and Proposed Linkage 10 by conserving far less than the mid -point amount of 120 acres on the cell. (RCA Letter at 4.) • The Project would encroach into the negative zone of influence for mountain lion movement — which is one the primary objectives of Cell 7355 and Proposed Linkage 10 — such that it is in conflict with reserve assembly goals. (RCA Letter at 4.) • The Project would preclude the ability to meet the target conservation range for Cell 7356 of 88 acres. (RCA Letter at 5.) The RCA Letter further notes that the City should analyze the cumulative impacts of the I-15/State Route 79 South interchange, but the City has failed to do this. (See id.) 14 28-U 28-V Comment Letter 28 • Proposed Linkage 10 was intended to provide linkage for movement of bobcats and mountain lions, as well as live-in habitat for them. The Project will significantly reduce the viability of Proposed Linkage 10 for these purposes by reducing the width of Proposal Linkage 10 from 1200 to 2700 feet to Tess than 500 feet. The RCA further concluded that (a) the reduction in Proposed Linkage 10 was "particularly critical" because of the concentrated mountain lion use at the southern end of the Project at the confluence of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River (RCA Letter at 6); (b) the City's plan to offer MSHCP fee credits to the Applicant in exchange for 270 acres of offsite land is an "inappropriate use of MSHCP fee credits" since these credits are designed for onsite conservation (RCA Letter at 7); (c) the Project must be conditioned upon fencing of proposed Conservation Areas, and the fencing plan must be reviewed and approved by RCA, USFWS and the CDFW. The RCA's determinations are entitled to deference because, as the DEIR notes, the RCA oversees, administers, and enforces the MSHCP. (DEIR at 3.3-10.) The DEIR claims that the RCA has no authority to prevent the City — a permittee of the MSHCP — from approving a discretionary project. (DEIR at 3.3-10.) While this may be true, failure to comply with the MSHCP means that the City is violating the Federal Endangered Species Act, and — by extension — CEQA. B. USFWS and CDFW have concluded that the Project violates the MSHCP. In ajoint letter to the City dated April 15, 2015 (the "USFWS Letter"), USFWS and CDFW informed the City that that they concurred with the RCA's conclusion: "The Wildlife Agencies concur with the RCA's determination and consider the project to be inconsistent with the MSHCP criteria for reserve assembly in terms of both area and function. (USFWS Letter at 1.) The USFWS Letter further explains how the Project will degrade biological connectivity between Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 14 and preclude MSHCP reserve assembly goals. (USFWS Letter at 2.) Proposed Linkage 10 would be narrowed to 600 feet, which is not sufficient to provide movement for mountain lions and bobcats. (Id. at 2.) Like Dr. Vickers and the RCA, the USFWS Letter contradicts the conclusions of the Applicant's consultant, HELIX. In particular, HELIX ignored existing development in analyzing acreage goals for each Criteria Cell and improperly implied that the reserve assembly criteria can be discounted merely because the Western Bypass is a Covered Activity. (USFWS Letter at 2.) And while the HELIX acknowledges that the Project will inhibit the intended reserve functions, HELIX somehow arrives at the contradictory conclusion that the Project is consistent with reserve assembly and connectivity needs. (See USFWS Letter at 2.) USFWS and CDFW also disagree with HELIX's legal interpretation of MSHCP requirements. While USFWS and CDFW note that the Project would result in a reserve assembly shortfall of approximately 200 acres (USFWS Letter at 3), HELIX and the Applicant have concluded that "acreage requirements are not the only criteria used when determining overall consistency with the MSHCP." (See DEIR, Appx. C at 44.) USFWS and CDFW 15 28-V 28-W Comment Letter 28 rejected this conclusion, and clarified that "the other MSHCP elements are additive to the acreage requirements not substitutes for them." (USFWS Letter at 3, emphasis added.) In other words, neither the City nor the Applicant may evade acreage requirements by claiming that they are fulfilling other MSHCP-related goals. The City and Applicant's efforts to do so violate the law. USFWS and CDFW further concurred with RCA that the Applicant's proposed conservation of 270 acres near Corona (which the Applicant has claimed is "voluntary") will not address the target acreage shortfalls in Subunits 1 and 6. (USFWS Letter at 3.) Moreover, the City's attempts to offset the Applicant's purchase costs with MSHCP credits violates the MSHCP. (Id. at 3.) USFWS and CDFW note in their letter that they already discussed the conflicts with the MSHCP at multiple meetings with the City and "expressed strong reservations" about the Project. Incredibly, the City and the Applicant have ignored the USFWS and CFDW's conclusions, and are attempting to move forward with the Project as proposed. Given that all of the relevant agencies have already concluded that this Project violates the MSHCP, the City's self-serving interpretation of the MSHCP is not supported by substantial evidence. VIII. The DEIR Fails To Demonstrate Consistency With The MSHCP. In addition to the mountain lion movement issues discussed above, the DEIR violates the MSHCP in a myriad of other ways. As a preliminary matter, the DEIR states that compliance with the MSHCP provides assurances that the Project is in compliance with the Federal ESA and CEQA. (DEIR at 3.3-58.) By the same token, non-compliance with the MSHCP indicates non- compliance with the FESA and Federal ESA and CEQA. The Project accordingly violates both the Federal ESA and CEQA for the reasons set forth below: A. The DEIR does not cite facts, evidence, or analysis for its conclusion that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. The DEIR repeatedly claims consistency with the MSHCP, but fails to offer any real analysis or facts supporting this claim. For example, the DEIR claims that the significant impacts on Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 will be mitigated by Tight and glare standards, fencing, conservation of land, and adherence to noise standards. (DEIR at 3.3-62.) The DEIR does not cite any evidence supporting this claim, and the analysis of CDFW, USFWS, RCA, and Dr. Vickers cited above directly contradict this claim. The DEIR claims that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP even though the DEIR concedes that the Project fails to meet specific Criteria Cell acreage goals. (DEIR at 3.3-64.) The DEIR notes that the RCA has concluded that the Project is inconsistent with the MSHCP. (Id.) Nonetheless, the DEIR claims that in light of the "broader analysis set forth above," the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. This claim is not based upon substantial evidence. I6 28-W 28-X Comment Letter 28 The DEIR admits that the Project will have an onsite shortfall of served acres for impacts to riparian and grassland habitat, and states that these impacts are significant such that mitigation is required. (DEIR at 3.3-59.) The DEIR then states that MM -BIO -4a, MM -BIO -4b, MM -BIO - 6a. and MM -BIO -6a will mitigate these impacts. (Ibid.) Yet, none of these mitigation measures has anything to do with mitigating grassland habitat, such that it is difficult to ascertain how they could mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. B. The Project fails to comply with the MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines. The DEIR incorrectly asserts that the Project is consistent with MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines. (DEIR at 3.3-64.) However, the DEIR concedes that the Western Bypass associated with the Project will result in impacts to wetlands, southern willow scrub, and other habitats. (DEIR at 3.3-65.) The DEIR lists percentages next to the acreage of each impacts, but does not explain what these percentages refer to. The DEIR also does not explain why it was infeasible to avoid these sensitive areas. (Id.) In addition, the Project does not appear to be consistent with MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria for endemic plant species. The MSHCP states that narrow endemic plant species will be avoided, and if not feasible, then the Project will comply with the Narrow Endemics Plant Policy. The DEIR merely states that San Diego ambrosia will be "voluntarily" be translocated. (DEIR at 3.3-65.) The DEIR's claim that such translocation is "voluntary" is misleading because such relocation is mandatory, not voluntary. In addition, the DEIR fails to provide any explanation as to how the Project will be complying with the Narrow Endemics Plant Policy. The DEIR's position also appears to conflict with USFWS and CDFW's direction that the population of San Diego ambrosia supported on Criteria Cell 7166 must be conserved. The Project fails to comply with the MSHCP Planned Roadway Criteria Guideline for breeding season. The Guidelines provide, "Any construction, maintenance and operation activities that involves clearing of natural vegetation will be conducted outside the active breeding season (March 1 through June 30)." In contrast, the DEIR only promises that this condition will be complied with "to the extent feasible," and provides no explanation as to what constitutes "feasibility." (DEIR at 3.3-66.) The DEIR accordingly does not assure compliance with this Guideline. IX. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze, Disclose, And Mitigate The Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project will undisputedly result in substantial greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The DEIR concedes that the Project's 24,953 MTCO2e of GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance, and claims that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at 3.6-15.) It is unclear, however, whether the 24,953 MTCO2e figure is accurate, as the source of the figure is not described; Table 3.6-2 opaquely lists the "source" as "ESA, 2015." (DEIR at 3.6-15.) The EIR should provide a detailed explanation for the 24,953 MTCO2e figure. 17 28-X 28-Y 28-Z Comment Letter 28 A. The DEIR improperly relies upon the discredited "business as usual" methodology. The Project's GHG emissions impacts analysis impermissibly relies upon the "business as usual" or "BAU" method. When the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA") issued a "CEQA & Climate Change" white paper intended to serve as a resource to assist lead agencies in analyzing GHG impacts under CEQA, CAPCOA determined that significance analysis relying on reductions from project business -as -usual emissions, had "low" GHG emission reduction effectiveness and consistency with state emission reduction targets. (CAPCOA 2008.) Similarly, the California Resources Agency cautioned against using the Scoping Plan's "business as usual" objective to determine significance under CEQA in its Final Statement of Reasons. The Resources Agency specifically warned that "a comparison of the project against a `business as usual' scenario as defined by [CARE] in the Scoping Plan ... would confuse `business as usual' projections used in [CARB's] Scoping Plan with CEQA's separate requirement of analyzing project effects in comparison to the environmental baseline."7 Additionally, the Attorney General has argued that because the "business as usual" approach "would award emission reduction `points' for undertaking mitigation measures that are already required by local or state law," it results in "significant lost opportunities" to require meaningful mitigation. (See Letter from California Attorney General to SJVACD re: Final Draft Staff Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA at 1, 3 (Nov. 4, 2009).) The analysis done in the DEIR flies in the face of the findings in the Scoping Plan, which recognize that local governments "are essential partners" in achieving California's emissions reduction goals, further highlighting the lack of legitimacy of the DEIR's significance criteria. (Scoping Plan at 26; see also Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dept. of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts) [hereinafter "Californians"].) Moreover, the DEIR's approach is not consistent with Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (hereinafter "Newhall"). Newhall held that the EIR must set forth substantial evidence that the project's "project -level" emissions reductions are consistent with achieving the state-wide goal of a 29 percent reduction from business as usual. (Id. at 225.) Newhall further explained that reductions based on "business -as -usual" comparisons do not comply with CEQA unless they are supported by substantial evidence on how the individual project, in its location supports of finding of less than significant. Accordingly, in order to adequately analyze GHG emissions under CEQA, the DEIR must include information and analysis how this Project's emissions fits in with local, regional and state level targets before making its less than significance finding. Moreover, while the significance threshold and analysis may have been based in part of existing thresholds, compliance with the law is not enough to make a finding of less than significant under CEQA. (See Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1107.) Instead "the EIR's discussion of impacts must "provide[] sufficient information and analysis to allow the public to discern the basis for the agency's impact findings. Thus the See California Natural Resources Agency, "Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action" (Dec. 2009) (available at htta://resources.ca.eov/cecla/docs/Final Statement of Reasons.ndf). 18 28 -AA Comment Letter 28 EIR should set forth specific data, as needed to meaningfully assess whether the proposed activities would result in significant impacts." (Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg'1 Planning Agency (2013) 916 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1146-1147 (Sierra Club).) The DEIR does not contain an adequate analysis of this issue. For instance, the DEIR does not adequately explain why greater emissions reductions are not required for the Project, given that designing new buildings and infrastructure for maximum energy efficiency and renewable energy use is easier than achieving the same savings from older structures. (See Newhall, 62 Ca1.4th 204, 226.) B. The DEIR Fails to adopt any meaningful mitigation measures to reduce the Project's GHG emissions. Mitigation of a project's environmental impacts is one of the "most important" functions of CEQA. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41.) Therefore, it is the "policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) Although the DEIR includes a curtailed list of measures directed at reducing emissions and promoting sustainability, these strategies are severely limited and do not include adequate mitigation measures. The meager steps incorporated into the Project do not include effective enforcement mechanisms and omit many feasible mitigation measures completely. Except for assuming that new technology will reduce emissions in the future, the DEIR does nothing to explain or analyze how the Project will meet future reduction targets. For example, MM-GHG-1 states that the applicant will apply for LEED certification; however, the applicant "will be deemed to have exercised best efforts to achieve full certification even if certification is denied, and "no further action" would then be required. (DEIR at 3.6-18; S-19.) The DEIR also proposes to "mitigate" GHG emissions through prohibiting fireplaces, requiring low VOC cleaning supplies, and including an option for onsite renewable energy such that a mere 9% of onsite energy consumption is "offset." (DEIR at S -I9, 3.2-23, 3.2-24.) These limited mitigation measures will not mitigate the Project's GHG impacts, and the DEIR fails to demonstrate that stronger mitigation measures are not feasible. The DEIR similarly claims that the proposed mitigation measures will ensure that the Project does not conflict with applicable plans for reducing GHG emissions. (DEIR at 3.6-19.) Yet, the DEIR only provides general details regarding these plans — such as the CARB Scoping Plan and Temecula Sustainability Plan — and does not explain how the Project is actually consistent with these plans. (See Newhall, 62 Ca1.4th 204, 225.) C. The DEIR should include further mitigation measures to reduce the Project's energy demands and increase use of renewable energy onsite. Mitigation measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled, energy use, waste, water consumption as well as use of solar power could lower the Project's impact on climate change 19 28 -AA 28 -BB 28 -CC Comment Letter 28 (as well as air pollution and water use). CAPCOA has identified existing and potential mitigation measures that could be applied to projects during the CEQA process to reduce a project's GHG emissions. (CAPCOA 2008). The California Office of the Attorney General also has developed a list of reduction mechanisms to be incorporated through the CEQA process. (CAPCOA 2008 at Table 16.) These resources provide a rich and varied array of mitigation measures to be incorporated into the Project. Potential mitigation measures include ease of access to public transit, alternative construction materials, and onsite energy generation, as discussed below: In general, the EIR should consider mitigation measures that will ensure the planned community will use energy efficiently and conservatively. In doing so, it should analyze incorporating "green building" in the development. Green buildings are those buildings that lower energy consumption, use renewable energy, conserve water, harness natural light and ventilation, use environmentally friendly materials and minimize waste. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Buildings create environmental impacts throughout their lifecycle, from the construction phase to their actual use to their eventual destruction. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) In the United States, buildings account for 40 percent of total energy use, 68 percent of total electricity consumption, and 60 percent of total non -industrial waste. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Buildings also significantly contribute to the release of greenhouse gases. In the U.S. they account for 38 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) More specifically, residential buildings cause up to 1,210 megatons of carbon dioxide, while commercial buildings create approximately 1,020 megatons. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) This is because buildings require a lot of energy for their day to day operations. Most of the coal-fired power plants — one of the biggest sources of GHG emissions — slated for development in the United States will supply buildings with the energy they need. In fact, 76 percent of the energy these plants produce will go to operating buildings in the U.S. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Using green building techniques, however, can substantially reduce buildings' influence in increasing GHG emissions. Green buildings help reduce the amount of energy used to light, heat, cool and operate buildings and substitute carbon -based energy sources with alternatives that do not result in GHG emissions. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) Currently green buildings can reduce energy by 30 percent or more and carbon emissions by 35 percent. (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008.) The technologies available for green building are already in wide -use and include "passive solar design, high -efficiency lighting and appliances, highly efficient ventilation and cooling systems, solar water heaters, insulation materials and techniques, high -reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. Specific mitigation measures for the GHG emissions generated by the Project's energy consumption include, but are not limited to: 20 28 -CC Comment Letter 28 • Requiring that the Applicant seek and obtain the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED or comparable standards for energy- and resource efficient building during pre -design, design, construction, operations and management; • Designing buildings for passive heating and cooling, and natural light, including building orientation, proper orientation and placement of windows, overhangs, skylights, etc.; • Designing buildings for maximum energy efficiency including the maximum possible insulation, use of compact florescent or other low-energy lighting, use of energy efficient appliances, etc.; • Reducing the use of pavement and impermeable surfaces; • Requiring water re -use systems; • Installing light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting • Limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting; • Maximizing water conservation measures in buildings and landscaping, using drought tolerant plants in lieu of turf, planting shade trees; • Ensure that the Project is fully served by full recycling and composting services; • Ensure that the Project's wastewater and solid waste will be treated in facilities where GHG emissions are minimized and captured; • Installing the maximum possible photovoltaic array on the building roofs and/or on the project site to generate all of the electricity required by the Project, and utilizing wind energy to the extent necessary and feasible; • installing solar water heating systems to generate all of the Project's hot water requirements; • Installing solar or wind powered electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid vehicle charging stations to reduce emissions from vehicle trips; The Project should further utilize the following mitigation measures related to construction: • Utilize recycled, low -carbon, and otherwise climate -friendly building materials such as salvaged and recycled -content materials for building, hard surfaces, and non -plant landscaping materials; • Minimize, reuse, and recycle construction -related waste; • Minimize grading, earth -moving, and other energy -intensive construction practices; • Landscape to preserve natural vegetation and maintain watershed integrity; • Utilize alternative fuels in construction equipment and require construction equipment to utilize the best available technology to reduce emissions. Rooftop solar power is the most energy efficient, least -environmentally damaging form of renewable energy available for the Project and is ideal for the Project's location. Nonetheless, the Project proposes only limited onsite solar energy. The Conservation Groups urge that on-site renewable energy be used to meet at least 75 percent of the Project's energy use. All other emissions should be reduced to extent possible, offset on-site and if that is not possible, offset using off-site mitigation. New construction, like this Project, has a unique opportunity to fully embrace and incorporate the use of renewable energy in its design, construction and operation. We urge the City to take full advantage of those opportunities, if it chooses to move forward with the Project. 21 — 28 -CC Comment Letter 28 X. The DEIR Fails To Disclose Or Analyze The Environmental Impacts Of The Project's Fuel Modification Plans. The DEIR states that the Project is "near" a "High Fire Hazard Area," but never discloses where this area is in relation to the Project. This fails to inform the public as to the fire dangers associated with the Project. MM-I-IAZ-1 states that the applicant will prepare a "fuel modification plan" prior to issuance of building permits. According to the County's Fire Department, fuel modification plans involve replacing native plants with drought resistant alternatives.s As such, it is reasonable to assume that these fuel modification plans would result in significant impacts on plants, wildlife, and other biological resources. Nonetheless, the DEIR does not provide any information regarding the specifics of these fuel modification plans, nor does the DEIR analyze the environmental impacts on biological resources of implementing these plans. The DEIR should include areas impacted by fuel modification plans as part of the development "footprint" of the Project, and be analyzed as such. Moreover, no fire clearance/thinning activities should occur within the boundaries of any federally designated critical habitat, open -space, natural area or wildlife movement corridor. Finally, fuel modification plans must ensure that no invasive species are planted as part of the plans. XI. The DEIR's Analysis Of The Project's Impacts On Water Quality Is Flawed. The Project will likely result in substantial impairment of the water quality in Murrieta Creek, as well as Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River. The DEIR explains that the Project will cause untreated runoff to flow from the Project site directly into Murrieta Creek. Untreated runoff often contains toxic metals, grease, trash, and other substances that are harmful to water quality and wildlife. Such dumping of untreated runoff is unacceptable, especially given that Murrieta Creek already is an impaired waterbody. While the DEIR claims that runoff from "developed" portions of the site would be treated, the DEIR provides no detail which portions of the site will be considered "developed" or what types of treatment the stormwater will undergo. The DEIR also is unclear as to what extent runoff will discharge directly into Murrieta Creek — on the one hand, it claims that runoff from the development will be "treated," but also states that "the majority of the project discharges directly into Murrieta Creek..." (DEIR at 3.8-19.) The DEIR does not include sufficient data regarding existing water quality conditions to provide adequate baseline information from which to assess Project impacts on local and regional water quality. All that is provided in the DEIR is a list of substances for which the Murrieta Creek is impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. (DEIR 3.8-3.) The DEIR does not provide information regarding any other substances, or provide adequate water quality information regarding Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River, which also are 8 Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection Planning Section, "Information Bulletin," (April 8, 2008) (available at • http://www.rvefire.ore/stationsAndFunctions/AdminSopt/FireMarshal/Documents/Informational%20BulletinsilB 0 8-05 Fuel Modification Rev 1.pdf). 22 28 -DD 28 -EE Comment Letter 28 adjacent to the Project site. Without this data, the DEIR fails to provide sufficient baseline information that would allow the public to evaluate significant adverse impacts the Plan will have on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § I5125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.App.4th 310, 3! 5[hereinafter CBE SCAQMD].) The DEIR also understates the impacts on water quality of the Project. For instance, the DEIR concludes that runoff patterns during and prior to construction will be the same. (DEIR at 3.8-18.) This claim is not credible because intensive grading of the site is very likely to change runoff patterns; the DEIR later admits that the Project's grading activities will require four million cubic yards of cut and fill. (DEIR at 3.8-29.) The mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR are not described in sufficient detail to ascertain whether they will be effective. The DEIR states that "BMPs" have been proven effective in reducing construction runoff, such that impacts would be less than significant. This is not an adequate analysis; the types of BMPs that the Project will utilize are not disclosed, nor is the effectiveness of the BMPs. This is a serious inadequacy in the DEIR given the Project's close proximity to three different streams — Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River, all of which are home to aquatic wildlife. The "mitigation" measures set forth in the DEIR impermissibly defer actual development of the mitigation measures. MM HYD -1 states that a drainage study will be prepared and will verify capacity of existing drainage facilities. (DEIR at 3.8-19.) Deferring this study until after the environmental review process is completed leaves the public in the dark regarding the true impacts of the Project, and violates CEQA. Even after this study is conducted, there is nothing in the DEIR that requires the developer to take steps to follow the recommendations of the study. Instead, if the study determines that facilities receiving stormwater are insufficient, then "onsite detention would be considered." (DEIR at 3.8-20.) CEQA requires that mitigation measures legally enforceable, not just "considered." MM -HYD -3 also defers development of the Project's Water Quality Management Plan because the Applicant is not required to submit the Plan until immediately prior to issuance of building or grading permits. (DEIR at 3.8-28.) Furthermore, the DEIR claims that stormwater runoff would not cause a significant impact because MM -HYD -1 requires compliance with the MS4 permit. Such promises are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact. (See Californians, 136 Cal.App.4th at 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts).) Likewise, MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3 — which require compliance with a SWPPP, "potential" BMPs, and the MS4 permit — will purportedly render impacts less than significant. (DEIR 3.8-21, Table 3.8-5, 3.8-26.) The Project must already comply with these regulations such that these "mitigation" measures are not additional to actions already required by the Applicant and the City. The purpose of the EIR is not just to explain how the Project will comply with existing laws; the EIR must disclose the Project's specific environmental impacts, and explain how these impacts will be mitigated. The DEIR fails to do this. 23 28 -EE Comment Letter 28 XII. The DEIR Fails To Accurately Disclose The Project's Impacts On Water Supply. The DEIR is the correct place to raise issues regarding adequacy of water supply under CEQA, and the proper occasion for decisionmakers and members of the public to challenge conclusions contained in a water district's Water Supply Assessment ("WSA"). (See California Water Impact Network v. Newhall County Water District (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1488 ("The lead agency has a separate and independent responsibility to assess the sufficiency of water supplies for the proposed project.").) The DEIR does not adequately analyze the impacts of the Project on water supply. On the one hand, the DEIR acknowledges that the local water agency has issued an "Extreme Water Supply Warning" which requires substantial cutbacks in water usage. (DEIR at 3.14-14.) On the other hand, the DEIR myopically claims that adding over 4,000 people to a City of approximately 100,000 (a 4 percent increase in population) will have no significant impact on water supplies. The DEIR indicates that groundwater recharge and "local groundwater" will substantially contribute to the water supplies for the Project. (Table at 3.14-5 and Table 3.14-1.) Yet, there is no analysis in the DEIR as to whether the groundwater basin can sustain continued pumping, especially in the event of prolonged droughts, which will become more common as the impacts of climate change intensify. Furthermore, the DEIR's water supply analysis does not adequately plan for the possibility that the state and regional water agencies will curtail water deliveries to the Rancho California Water District ("RCWD"), which provides water to the City and its residents. As the WSA admits, the Project will rely upon water deliveries from the State Water Project, Colorado River, and groundwater, including through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"). (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -5.) As the WSA further admits, MWD recently reduced water deliveries to RCWD by 15 percent. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) It is possible that MWD could further reduce water deliveries, or that the State Water Project could reduce or entirely eliminate water deliveries. Nonetheless, there is no discussion in the DEIR or WSA as to whether adequate water supplies exist for the Project in the event that MWD or other agencies further reduce water supply deliveries to RCWD. At a time when Temecula residents are subject to mandatory reductions in water usage, it is unfortunate that the City is pushing forward with a Project that will force Temecula residents to share their limited water allocations with thousands of additional residents. XIII. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Assess Or Mitigate The Project's Noise Impacts. The DEIR concedes that construction operations will result in noise levels of 89 dBA Leq and beyond. (DEIR at 3.10-23.) These noise levels exceed the limit in Temecula Municipal Code section 9.20.040, which prohibits noise exposure to residential of over 70 dBA. The DEIR also mischaracterizes section 9.20.040 by claiming that this section provides that people "should" not be exposed to these noise levels, even though section 9.20.040 actually mandates that people "shall" not be exposed to these noise levels. In any event, the DEIR concedes that 24 28 -FF 28 -GG Comment Letter 28 the Project's generation of these noise levels will result in significant impacts. (DEIR at 3.10-24 & 25.) The DEIR states that the Project will still comply with section 9.20.040 because it will seek a construction exception per section 9.20.070. If such an exception is not approved by the City, then the applicant will install noise barriers, state of the art mufflers, and reduce the amount of concurrently operating equipment. (DEIR at 3.10-26.) The Applicant would not be required to implement these measures if the exception is approved. (Id.) By noting that the Applicant will implement these mitigation measures if the exception is not approved, the DEIR implicitly concedes that these mitigation measures are feasible. Nonetheless, the DEIR claims that mitigation of construction activity noise impacts are "significant and unavoidable." (DEIR at 3.10-27.) Given that the DEIR does not even require all feasible mitigation measures, this conclusion is false. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be implemented in order to reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. The DEIR further concedes that the Project will violate Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) vibration thresholds. (DEIR at 3.10-28.) However, the DEIR's mitigation measures are inadequate and unenforceable — MM -N01 -2b only requires the applicant to refrain from operating jackhammers within 20 feet of institutional structures. (DEIR at 3.10-29.) The DEIR fails to present any evidence indicating that such a meagre buffer will significantly reduce vibration or noise impacts. Likewise, MM -N01 -2b only requires the Applicant to comply with this buffer "to the extent feasible," thus giving the Applicant license to ignore this requirement if the Applicant determines it is not "feasible" to comply. MM -N01-3 impermissibly defers mitigation of noise impacts. This measure only requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with noise standards at the building permit issuance stage instead of during the CEQA process. (DEIR at 3.10-30.) This improperly excludes the public from reviewing the environmental impacts of the Project and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. Just as with MM-NOI-2b, MM -N01-3 requires significant mitigation measures only //noise standards are exceeded. (Id.) The DEIR is unclear as to whether the Applicant is permitted to make its own self-serving determination that noise standards are met, or whether the City or some other agency would make this determination. The DEIR also fails to offer any analysis of the impacts on wildlife of the construction and operation noise generated by the Project. Instead, the Biological Resources section generally refers to the noise mitigation measures (DEIR at 3.3-61), which are vague, unenforceable, and do not provide mitigation to the maximum extent feasible. The DEIR generally states that "wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards." (DEIR at 3.3-33.) However, as discussed above, the DEIR concedes that the Project will exceed such noise standards, and does not mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Project's siting of the Western Bypass within close proximity to the Project's residents will significantly impact the residents. The DEIR states that residential 25 28 -GG 28 -HH Comment Letter 28 development may occur within 45 feet of the "centerline of the Western Bypass..." (DEIR at 3.10-45.) Given that each side of the Western Bypass is two lanes (e.g., at least 24 feet), this means that residential development may occur immediately next to the Western Bypass, with virtually no buffer. MM -N01-5 does not even require compliance with this 45 -foot requirement, but gives the Applicant flexibility to install development even closer to the Western Bypass if "other measures" are taken to "ensure compliance" with noise standards. (DEIR at 3.10-36.) The DEIR then baselessly concludes that these unspecified "other measures" will ensure that impacts are less than significant. (Id.) Common sense suggests that siting residential development within a few feet of a highway will cause noise impacts on the residents (as well as wildlife). Finally, the DEIR defers analysis of the noise impacts of the various foreseeable uses for the Project's civic use portion — for example, there is no discussion in the DEIR of the noise impacts of the potential civic uses, such as student housing. Student housing — with its attendant parties, noise, and late-night activities — would presumably have greater noise impacts than a library. However, the failure of the DEIR to set forth specific plans regarding the Project makes it impossible to accurately assess the environmental consequences from implementing it, in violation of CEQA. (Sundstrom v. Canty of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296.) Even if CEQA did permit such non-specific plans to be set forth in the DEIR, the DEIR should have still analyzed the noise impacts of reasonably foreseeable uses, such as student housing. XIV. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Assess The Project's Traffic Impacts. A. The DEIR fails to justify its use the MXD model. The DEIR states that it utilized the "Mixed-use Development" or "MXD" model to estimate traffic impacts. (DEIR at 3.13-14.) The DEIR does not explain whether the MXD model took into account the reality that most Temecula residents commute nearly sixty miles to San Diego for employment. The DEIR does concede that there are only about 42,000 jobs in Temecula with a significant percentage of low-paying retail jobs and an average salary of only $37,178. (DEIR at 3.11-3.) Obviously, such low salaries are likely insufficient to support residents of the Project, such that these will need to commute many miles to other cities in order to afford their residences. Yet, despite Temecula's location far from employment centers, the MXD model used data from Mixed-use Developments in highly urbanized areas with substantial employment centers such as Sacramento and San Diego. (See DEIR, Appx. 1 at 34.) The DEIR accordingly fails to establish that the MXD model was appropriate to assess the traffic impacts of the Project. The DEIR does not disclose the average trip length or average of vehicle miles travelled ("VMT") for the Project. Without further information on how average trip length was calculated, it is impossible to ascertain whether the traffic analysis in the DEIR is accurate. Again, the DEIR fails to adequately disclose the Project's environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. B. The DEIR does not adequately study the traffic impacts of the Project on the surrounding region. 26 28 -HH 28-11 28 -JJ Comment Letter 28 CEQA requires that the EIR analyze the regional impacts on traffic of the Project. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 575.) Unfortunately, the DEIR does not specify the study area for traffic impacts of the Project, nor provide any sort of analysis of the regional traffic impacts of adding thousands of people (and thousands of cars) to the already -congested Temecula/I-15 corridor. C. The Project will result in traffic impacts that violate applicable levels of service. The DEIR concedes that the Project will violate applicable levels of service ("LOS") in the General Plan. (DEIR at 3.13-18.) The DEIR claims that mitigation measures providing for "signal timing optimization" will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (Id.) Yet, the DEIR does not provide any facts or analysis supporting its conclusion that signal timing optimization will actually reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Project also may violate Circulation Element Policy 1.1, which requires the City to strive to maintain a minimum LOS of LOS D. The Project admittedly will not maintain such a minimum LOS (see DEIR at 3.13-16 & 3.13-23), and the meagre mitigation measures set forth later in the Traffic Section (MM -TRA -I through MM -TRA -7) do not demonstrate that the City is taking achievement of LOS D seriously. D. The DEIR defers the development of actual measures to mitigation traffic impacts. As with other sections of the DEIR, the DEIR improperly defers mitigation of traffic impacts. MM -TRA -14 only requires development of a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. (DEIR at 3.13-31.) Deferring the development of the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan shuts the public out of the environmental review process. While the description of MM -TRA -14 does state that these Plans "shall" require certain implementation measures, they are vaguely worded ("applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary") or merely require coordination with the City ("contractor shall coordinate with the City ... "). (See DEIR at 3.13-31.) The DEIR also proposes widening roads in order to mitigate the Project's impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR at 3.13-27.) Yet, the DEIR does not explain whether the environmental impacts of these additional road widening projects are considered in the DEIR. It appears they are not. XV. The DEIR Does Not Accurately Disclose Or Analyze The Cumulative Impacts Of The Project. CEQA defines "cumulative impacts" as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355.) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project "when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).) And while an agency is not expected to foresee the unforeseeable, it is expected to use its "best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably 27 28 -JJ 28 -KK 28 -LL 28 -MM Comment Letter 28 can." (CEQA Guidelines § 15144; see also City of Richmond, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 96; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 428 [hereinafter "Vineyard"].) The purpose of analyzing cumulative environmental impacts is to assess adverse environmental change "as a whole greater than the sum of its parts." (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 625.) Absent meaningful cumulative analysis there would be no control of development and "piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the [] environment." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) A. The DEIR lists foreseeable projects, but then fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project in relation to these foreseeable projects. The DEIR refers to a list of additional, foreseeable projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, but the DEIR does not actually discuss the potential impacts these projects would bring to various resources anywhere else in the cumulative analysis section. (See (DEIR at Table 4-1.) The DEIR does not state whether the list in Table 4-1 constitutes all nearby related projects, nor does it provide any explanation as to how these projects were selected. The DEIR also fails to conduct any analysis regarding the foreseeable cumulative impacts associated with these projects. If the City lacked the information to conduct such an analysis, it should have at least attempted to obtain such information. The DEIR must be re -circulated to include an adequate analysis of additional cumulative impacts resulting from the Project, as well as from the foreseeable projects identified. B. The DEIR does not adequately define the geographic scope used in the cumulative impacts analysis. The DEIR does not properly "define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic area." (See Guidelines § 15130(b)(3)). The DEIR instead states that the projects in Table 4-1 are projects "that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area." (DEIR at 4-2.) The term "project area" is never defined. This brief reference to the "project area" does not provide sufficient clarity to the public regarding the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis. C. The DEIR does not disclose the cumulative impacts on air quality of the Project. As described in section IV, the DEIR does not adequately analyze or mitigate the air quality impacts of the Project. Because this analysis is inadequate, the associated cumulative impacts analysis also is inadequate. The DEIR acknowledges that cumulative impacts of the project could violate air quality standards or contribute to existing or projected air quality violations. (DEIR at 4-6.) THE DEIR claims these impacts are "significant and unavoidable," but fails to state whether all feasible mitigation measures have been required of the Applicant. As such, its finding is not based upon substantial evidence. 28 28 -MM '28 -NN 28-00 28 -PP Comment Letter 28 The DEIR also fails to provide any detail regarding the nature and extent of cumulative impacts on air quality, or the approximate number of persons who would be impacted. The DEIR's discussion of cumulative impacts accordingly does not serve its purpose as an informational document. D. The DEIR's analysis regarding the cumulative impacts to biological resources is conclusory and inadequate. The DEIR again fails to define the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis with respect to biological resources. The DEIR states that the geographic scope is the "same watershed" but then fails to identify the watershed. (DEIR at 4-7.) This is a critical deficiency because there are multiple watersheds that will be impacted by the Project and other foreseeable projects, including Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The Biological Resources section of the cumulative impacts analysis does not provide any meaningful analysis of the various existing and planned development that will alter the ecosystems surrounding the Project area. The DEIR instead falls back on the MSHCP, and claims that MSHCP consistency will ensure compliance with all applicable laws. (DEIR at 4-7.) Even if this Project were consistent with the MSHCP (which the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW concludes it is not), there is no guarantee that these other projects will comply with the MSHCP. And even if they did, such compliance is irrelevant to whether these projects along with the Project will cause cumulative impacts. In addition, the DEIR inaccurately implies that the Project's cumulative impacts to biological resources would not be considerable since the Project would implement mitigation measures in the DEIR. (DEIR at 4-4.) This claim is not based upon substantial evidence because the referenced mitigation measures are designed to reduce the Project's direct impacts; they are not designed to alleviate cumulative impacts as required by CEQA Guidelines 15130(a)(3). The DEIR also contains no analysis as to how the Project — combined with the various foreseeable projects listed on Table 4-1 — will impact water quality, water supplies, noise levels, habitat corridors, and protected species. Particular concerns include disturbances to animals, litter, vehicular deaths, off-road vehicle use nearby wildlife habitat, noise disturbances, increased hunting, spread of invasive species and erosion. None of these issues were adequately addressed within the cumulative impacts analysis. E. The DEIR fails to disclose the cumulative impacts on wildlife movement of foreseeable projects, such as the Temecula Creek Inn and the I-15/State Route 79 Interchange. As noted above, the DEIR contains no analysis regarding the cumulative impacts of the Project on biological resources. The DEIR instead references a list of projects in Table 4-1, and notes that the Temecula Creek Inn project could have significant effects on wildlife movement in Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. Nonetheless, there is no further discussion regarding the nature and extent of these impacts. Buried in the MSHCP Consistency Report (Appx. C) is a 29 28 -PP 28-QQ 28 -RR Comment Letter 28 single reference to the proposed Temecula Creek Inn — the Report notes that if mountain lions were travel from the west to Proposed Linkage 10 (which the Project will severely constrain), they would need to traverse a high density residential and commercial development, and the proposed Temecula Creek Inn "would significantly increase residential development in this area, further reducing viability" of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. (Appx. C at 41.) As discussed above, the Project will severely constrain Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14. The Temecula Creek Inn project will further squeeze these linkages. Taken together, these two projects will significant — and perhaps completely — limit the ability of mountain lions to travel from the coastal Santa Ana ranges into the inner mountain ranges, and thus undermine the genetic diversity of these animals. By failing to analyze these serious and foreseeable cumulative impacts, the City clearly has violated CEQA. As a final blow to the Santa Ana mountain lion, the I-15/State Route 79 interchange project will impact much of the remaining acreage in Cell 7356, which contributes to Proposed Linkage 10. (See RCA Letter at 5.) The RCA even asked the City to analyze the cumulative impacts of the 1-15/State Route 79 interchange projects, but "no information was provided." (RCA Letter at 5.) The City's pattern of willful blindness to the significant and cumulative impacts of these projects is inexcusable. F. The DEIR does not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality. The DEIR does not contain any meaningful analysis regarding potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality. Instead, the DEIR suggests that the Project will not contribute to cumulative impacts because all future projects must comply with existing regulations and permits. Such promises of regulatory compliance are insufficient to demonstrate a lack of cumulative impacts. (See Californians, 136 Cal.App.4th at 17 (compliance with existing environmental laws or regulations is not sufficient to support a finding that a project will not have significant environmental impacts).) The inadequacy of pointing to current regulations in claiming that no cumulative impacts will occur is borne out by the DEIR, which concedes that "Murrieta Creek water quality is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity..." (DEIR at 4-10.) If compliance with existing regulations were sufficient to ensure that no cumulative impacts to water quality, then why is the water quality of Murrieta Creek already impaired? The DEIR should have analyzed the impacts of residential and commercial pesticide and fertilizer use on Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The RCA warned that the wildlife is at great risk from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff. (RCA Letter at 9.) Finally, the DEIR again ignores the foreseeable cumulative impacts on the waterways adjacent to the Project of additional planned development, such as Temecula Creek Inn. 30 28 -RR 28 -SS Comment Letter 28 XVI. The Alternatives Analysis In The DEIR Is Inadequate And Fails To Comply With CEQA. CEQA mandates that significant environmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Guidelines §§ I5002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Moreover, although "an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project ... it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision decision-making and public participation." (Guidelines § I5126.6(a).) Additionally, the "key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts." (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1089.) Accordingly, a rigorous analysis of reasonable alternatives to the Project must be provided to comply with this strict mandate. Unfortunately, the DEIR fails to meet this requirement on two levels: the DEIR analysis of the alternatives proposed is inadequate and the DEIR fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives. In analyzing the No Project Alternative, the DEIR should have discussed the need for the Project and whether the uses that would potentially utilize the Project can be accommodated in existing areas. As CAPCOA states in its white paper, one way local governments can avoid significant increases in GI -IG emissions and help solve the problem of climate change is to "facilitate more efficient and economic use of the lands" already developed within the community. (CAPCOA 2008.) Reinvesting in existing communities is "appreciably" more efficient than new development and may even result in a net reduction of greenhouse gases. (CAPCOA 2008.) The EIR should consider an alternative that relies more on higher -density mixed commercial/residential development projects on existing disturbed lands in order to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and encourage efficient delivery of services and goods. (Office of the California Attorney General 2008.) The DEIR refused to consider any other site locations for the Project because the objectives of the Project require that the Project be sited within "walking or cycling" distance to Old Town. (DEIR at 5-4.) Yet, the DEIR does not disclose whether any other sites within walking or cycling distance of Old Town are potentially available as the Project site. A. The DEIR improperly failed to identify alternatives which allowed for both the civic use and the elementary school. The DEIR "fixed" the result of the alternative analysis by only including one alternative which was comparable to the Project, and refusing to consider even a slightly down -sized version of the Project which could have accommodated both the civic use and the elementary school. More specifically, Alternative 3 mirrors the Project except that Alternative 3 would relocate the civic use from the 55 -acre South Parcel to the elementary site, and remove the elementary school from the Project. (DEIR at 5-14.) The DEIR acknowledges that Alternative 3 would provide for greater wildlife corridor width at the southern end of the Project site in which Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 converge. (Id.) The DEIR also 31 28 -TT 28-UU Comment Letter 28 states that Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, water quality, and water supply. (Table 5-3.) Despite these benefits of Alternative 3, Table 5-2 concludes that Alternative 3 would not meet two Project goals — (1) providing an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students and (2) providing for a civic site of up to 450,000 square feet. Yet, the DEIR does not explain how Alternative 3 fails to provide for a civic site of up to 450,000 square feet; indeed, in the description of Alternative 3, the DEIR states that the civic use of"up to 450,000 square feet" will replace the elementary school site. (DEIR at 5-14.) In addition, the name of Alternative 3 is "Relocate Civic Use Alternative," which confirms that the civic site use objective of the Project will be met under Altemative 3. As such, Alternative 3 clearly would meet the Project goal of providing for a civic use. The DEIR is correct that, as currently proposed, Alternative 3 would not meet the project objective of accommodating an elementary school on the site. Yet, the DEIR could have offered a project alternative that retained the elementary school, but reduced the amount of residential units in order to accommodate the elementary school. In failing to do so, the City "fixed" the results of the alternatives analysis and violated CEQA by including only an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. (See Save Round Valley Alliance v. County oflnyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57.) B. The DEIR "fixed" the results of the alternatives analysis in maintaining that a civic use and elementary school are Project objectives. At the same time, the DEIR employed an improperly narrow objective in order to reject environmentally superior alternatives. The objectives for a project cannot be so narrowly defined so that they essentially preordain the selection of the agency's proposed alternative. Case law under CEQA's federal equivalent, the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") can be helpful in interpreting CEQA. Early CEQA cases relied heavily on NEPA case law. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 80; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 CaI.3d 247, 261. California courts agree that "NEPA cases continue to play an important role in adjudication of CEQA cases, especially when a concept developed in NEPA decisions has not yet been applied to CEQA cases." (Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, 732.) The position of the Seventh Circuit in Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (7th Cir. 1997) 120 F.3d 664, 669, is therefore relevant to this case: The "purpose" of a project is a slippery concept, susceptible of no hard-and-fast definitions. One obvious way for an agency to slip past the strictures of NEPA is to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing 'reasonable alternatives' out of consideration (and even out of existence). The federal courts cannot condone an agency's frustration of Congressional will. Applied here, the DEIR states that the Project objectives include both the 450,000 square foot civic center and an elementary school. By including these elements as required objectives of the 32 28-UU 28 -VV Comment Letter 28 Project — and then refusing to analyze reduced size alternatives — the DEIR essentially preordains the development of the Project as proposed, in violation of the authorities cited above. C. The DEIR should have analyzed a range of alternatives and included meaningful analysis of the impacts of these alternatives. As illustrated above, the DEIR did not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives including, but not limited to, the following: increased density with a substantially smaller project footprint; transportation -oriented design surrounding existing transit nodes or transit corridors within or adjacent to the Project area; a low carbon alternative that would actually result in lower emissions; conversion of the land into a conservation or mitigation bank; and mixed use development combined with greater preservation and enhancement of existing wildlife habitat. As courts have made clear, "[a] potential alternative should not be excluded from consideration merely because it would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Bryo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57 (quotations omitted).) The DEIR should also include quantitative and meaningful comparisons between the Project's impacts and proposed alternatives' likely impacts, including analysis of estimated GHG emissions, quantified impacts to biological resources, water resources including water quality and water availability, and traffic resulting from each proposed alternative. Under CEQA, "the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that, notwithstanding a project's impact on the environment, the agency's approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997), 16 Cal. 4th 105, 134.) The DEIR's general statements regarding these topics are insufficient. XVII. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze The Growth -Inducing Impacts Of The Project. EIRs are required to provide a detailed discussion regarding the growth -inducing impacts of a project. (Guidelines §§ 21100(6)(5); 21156.) Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 369 sets forth three factors to determine the level of detail required in a growth -inducing impacts analysis: (a) the nature of the project; (b) the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact; and (c) the ability to forecast the actual effects the project will have on the physical environment. (Id.) Applying these factors here, the DEIR should have contained a detailed analysis regarding growth - inducing impacts because (a) the Project at issue is extremely large, is sited in an area with no existing development, and includes infrastructure that will undoubtedly act as a catalyst for future development in the area; (b) the Project will result in direct impacts in the area by paving the way for future development through infrastructure; (c) the City already has lists of potential proposed developments (see Table 4-1), such that the City can forecast the nature and extent of growth inducing impacts. Despite these requirements, the DEIR spends less than two pages analyzing the growth -inducing impacts of the Project. This is plainly inadequate under Napa Citizens. 33 t 28 -VV 28 -WW 28 -XX Comment Letter 28 The DEIR's failure to disclose the growth -inducing impacts of expanding the Western Bypass is a violation of CEQA. The Western Bypass will literally pave the way for future development in the City and beyond by easing traffic on Interstate 1-5. Nonetheless, the DEIR does not even mention the Western Bypass in the growth -inducing impacts section. The DEIR also fails to discuss how the Project will lead to an increase in population and will likely require the construction of new or expanded public facilities. In turn, these expanded facilities will cause additional significant impacts on the environment, wildlife, air quality, traffic, etc. XVIII. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze The Energy Conservation Mitigation Measures Set Forth In Appendix F Of The CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR is required to analyze whether the energy conservation mitigation measures in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines could be adopted as part of the Project. (See California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209 (an EIR is defective when it fails to include a detailed statement setting forth the mitigation measures proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy in accordance with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines) [hereinafter "CCEC'].) Nonetheless, the DEIR fails to include any mention or analysis of the conservation mitigation measures in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR also fails to adequately describe the transportation energy impacts of the Project. (See Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264 (EIR invalid because it failed to disclose the transportation energy impacts of vehicle trips generated by the project).) Perhaps most importantly, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines requires the DEIR to analyze the viability of adding renewable energy systems to the Project in order to mitigate its impacts and "increase[e] reliance on renewable energy sources..." Yet, the DEIR contains no discussion of the appropriateness of renewable energy options for the Project. Instead, MM - AQ -Id states that buildings must either exceed the energy efficiency of the 2013 Building Standards or offset energy use with 9 percent renewable energy. As noted above, the 2016 Building Standards already exceed the energy efficiency of the 2013 Building Standards by a substantial margin. As such, mere compliance with current law would equate to compliance with MM -AQ -1d, such the Applicant can entirely avoid incorporating any renewable energy into the Project. By omitting any discussion or analysis of renewable energy options for the Project, the City has violated CEQA. (See CCEC, 225 Cal.App.4th at 213.) This omission is particularly unfortunate because onsite solar energy could power most — if not all — of the Project's energy needs. XIX. Conclusion Given the possibility that the Conservation Groups will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the 34 28 -XX 28 -YY 28 -ZZ Comment Letter 28 "administrative record." As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes "pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency's compliance with CEQA ...." (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City's representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City's representatives or employees and the Applicant's representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Project. We look forward to working to assure that the Project and environmental review conforms to the requirements of state law and to assure that all significant impacts to the environment are fully analyzed, mitigated or avoided. In light of many significant, unavoidable environmental impacts that will result from the Project, we strongly urge the Project not be approved in its current form. Please do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number listed below. We look forward to reviewing the City's responses to these comments in the Final EIR for this Project once it has been completed. Sincerely, J.P. Rose Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity PMB 447, 8033 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90046-2401 Ph: (408) 497-7675 irose@biologicaldiversity.org 7cs+.219A Kim F. Floyd Conservation Chair San Gorgonio Chapter Sierra Club /s/ Vicki Long President Cougar Connection 35 28 -ZZ Comment Letter 28 References (Attached on USB Drive) California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.pdf). CAPCOA. 2008. California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Cayan 2007, California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California CEC-500-2006-077 (2006). http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA climate Scenarios.pdf. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Greenbuilding in North America: Opportunities and Challenges (2008) http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/2335-green-bui ld i ng -i n-north-america- opportun ities-and-chal len ges-en.pdf. Ernest et al., 2014, Fractured Genetic Connectivity Threatens a Southern California Puma (Puma concolor) Population, PLUS ONE. http://iournals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.137 1 /iourna I. pone.0107985 Jennings et al. (1994), Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, CAL. DEP'T. OF FISH & WILDLIFE 101, 102 (1994). https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?Document1D=83971 Lin et al., 2002, Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic, 88 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2 (2002). Los Angeles Times, "L.A.'s mountain lions could be near extinction in 50 years" (Aug. 31, 2015) http://www.latimes.com/sc ience/sc iencenow/la-sc i-sn-mou ntai n-lions-threat-20160830- snap-storv.html. Pilliod et al. (2013), Terrestrial Movement Patterns of Western Pond Turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in Central California, 8 HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION & BIOLOGY 207, 207. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Thresholds. h ttp://www.agmd.gov/home/regu l ati on s/cega/a it-qual i ty-ana l vsi s-handbook/local ized- signiticance-thresholds. 36 Comment Letter 28 Spinks et al. (2003), Survival of the Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) in an Urban California Environment, 113 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 257, 257. 37 Comment Letter 29 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE February 12, 2017 Mayor Maryann Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Item 12, February 14, 2017, Altair Specific Plan Southern Parcel (Civic Site) Dear Mayor Edwards and Councilmembers Endangered Habitats League (EHL) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) appreciate the opportunity to provide input as you discuss the uses of the Civic Site. We have appreciated the thoughtful workshops you have held on wildlife movement and the MSHCP. We also recognize the positive urban design features of the Altair project. While there are several aspects to achieving MSHCP consistency, certainly foremost is the effect of the project on the main linkage via Temecula Creek. We and others have expressed concern that the distance from Civic Site uses to the corridor is not sufficient to overcome the inhibitory effects of a large and intense use, particularly one that would involve nighttime activity, traffic, and lighting. Uses like a hospital or university are problematic. However, less intensive civic uses that are compatible with biological values are viable. For example, a readily accessible nature center at this location comes to mind, with associated trails and interpretive facilities. It could serve as a take off point to trails to surrounding attractions. If the Council wishes to move in this direction, EHL and TNC would be happy to provide scientific input on appropriate parameters. In addition, if the Civic Site use can be resolved, FHL and TNC offer to help build consensus around the project, to address the remainder of the MSHCP issues, and to work on a mitigation package. We have much to do on linkages going forward—across Temecula Creek and in regard to 1-15 itself—and we can only succeed in the bigger picture through collaboration. Thank you for considering our views. Dan Silver, MD Executive Director Endangered Habitats League Sincerely, Cara Lacey, AICP Project Director The Nature Conservancy 29-A 29-B 29-C 29-D 8424 SANTA MONICA BLVD SUITE A 592 Los ANGELES CA 90069-4267 ♦ WWW,EHLEAGUE.ORG ♦ PHONE 213.804.2750 US. FtSli •wunlne SERVICE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, California 92262 760-322-2070 FAX 760-322-4648 CALIFORNIA FISH & WILDLIFE Comment Letter 30 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, California 91764 909-484-0167 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: F W S/CDF W -W RI V-1560192-17CPA0093 February 14, 2017 Sent by email Mayor Maryann Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Agenda Item #12 for Feb. 14, 2017, City Council Meeting: Altair Specific Plan's South Parcel (potential location for a "Civic Site") Dear Mayor Edwards and Councilmembers: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), hereafter referred to jointly as the Wildlife Agencies are writing regarding Item #12 on the February 14, 2017 City Council Meeting agenda — a request from Staff for direction from the City Council on future uses and/or activities on the 55 -acre South Parcel of the Altair Specific Plan in order to complete the Final EIR. We are writing in support of preserving the 55 - acre parcel in a natural state. The conservation of the 55 -acre parcel would provide several benefits including: • Consistency with the MSHCP cell criteria and MSHCP Permittee responsibilities; • Reduced impacts to MSHCP Proposed Linkage 10, and its utility for mountain lion use. • Preserving the connectivity function of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 in the presence of the development proposed for the rest of the Altair Specific Plan; • Preservation and continued use of the mountain lion cub -rearing territory on the South Parcel; • Avoidance of impacts to mountain lion use of the 1-15 underpass inside MSHCP constrained wildlife corridor #14; and • Conservation of pond turtle nesting and overwintering habitat. We appreciated the opportunity to comment and have provided a fuller discussion of our reasoning and position below. The Wildlife Agencies previously reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Altair Specific Plan (Project), and have expressed our concerns about the project to the City, both in writing (see enclosed) and in multiple meetings with City staff and elected officials. The I 30-A 30-B 30-C Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-17CPA0093) 2 DEIR was prepared to identify the proposed project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, or offset significant environmental impacts. South Parcel Development is Not Consistent with the MSHCP The Altair project was found to be inconsistent with the MSHCP by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the Service, and the Department, mainly because it proposes development in an area primarily described for conservation and is therefore inconsistent with the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly Criteria. The size and location of the Project significantly narrows Proposed Linkage 10 (Linkage 10) and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (Linkage 14) at critical points and has the potential to significantly negatively affect the movement of mountain lions between the Santa Ana Mountains and the eastern Peninsular Ranges and would negatively affect the MSHCP Conservation Area as a whole. An MSHCP Criteria Refinement is required if the project is to developed as proposed. As the RCA stated in its JPR findings on the Project, the development of the Altair South Parcel in MSHCP Cells 7355 and 7356 "will significantly reduce the viability of the MSHCP's Linkage 10 as movement and live-in habitat for mountain lions." Per Section 6.2 of Helix's MSHCP Consistency Report for the Project, construction of the Project would generate a Zone of Negative Influence which would completely overlap the residual mountain lion habitat corridor remaining after development of the South Parcel "where nearly all mountain lion activities (i.e., breeding, hunting, transit) would be affected, which is in direct conflict with what the MSHCP intended for this Linkage." The Proposed Project would reduce the width of Linkage 10 from the MSHCP-planned width of 1,200 to 2,700 feet within the Project area to less than 500 feet at its narrowest point (RCA 2015). The linkage post - development has been described by City Staff as remaining up to a mile wide after the project is built, however, this is misleading because the mile -wide distance overlaps developed rural areas with homes and agriculture that are not conserved, are not described for conservation, and do not provide suitable live-in or movement habitat. The linkage is intended to consist of natural habitat with long-term conservation values. The constraint on mountain lion movement and use that would be created in the vicinity of the South Parcel where the most concentrated mountain lion use currently occurs. This concentrated use results from the linkages merging at the confluence of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and the Santa Margarita River. The crossing underneath 1-15 at Temecula Creek (Linkage 14) and Linkage 10 are necessary for mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Cleveland National Forest. Maintaining the two Linkages in conservation. as described by the Cell Criteria in the MSHCP, is critical to the functioning of the wildlife Linkages and the long-term viability of the mountain lion population of the Santa Ana Mountains. Narrowing Linkage 10 will force mountain lions westward into a rural - residential area where they will come into conflict with rural residents, traffic, livestock and pets. Human land use decisions have resulted habitat fragmentation which has increased mountain lion contact with humans. Contact with humans and human activities is a significant cause of mountain lion mortality in southern California (vehicle collisions (28%), 30-C 30-D 30-E 30-F Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-17CPA0093) 3 depredation permits (17%), illegal killings (11%), and public safety removals (3%)) (Vickers et al., 2015). As Dr. Winston Vickers, a highly respected mountain lion researcher, put it (Vickers e-mail, November 6, 2014, as cited in Sierra/CBD 2016): "Development of the southernmost pad area is expected to have the most negative impact, especially on mountain lion use of the escarpment just north of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. Movement in Temecula creek toward the Temecula Creek Bridge beneath 1-15 may also be negatively impacted by development at the southern- most site. Since this bridge (spanning Temecula Creek) is currently the only (possibly) functional safe passage underneath 1-15 for mountain lions that is likely to allow introduction of critically needed fresh genetic material into the Santa Ana mountain lion population ... any further reduction in its potential functionality is unwise, at best ...". Conservation of the 55 -acre South Parcel would reduce the overall impacts of the entire Altair Specific Plan. Approval of the Altair Project requires a criteria refinement to achieve MSHCP consistency because the proposed development is in an area largely described for conservation. Preservation of this site would aid in reducing serious project impacts on the linkages and contribute to any analysis seeking to demonstrate that the alternative conservation proposal (criteria refinement) provides equivalent or superior benefit to Covered Species than the conservation described in the cell criteria. Pond Turtle Impacts The South Parcel location proposed for the Civic Site is within 36 meters of Murrieta Creek. Development of the South Parcel has the potential to remove suitable upland western pond turtle habitat. The Western Pond Turtle is a MSHCP Planning Species for MSHCP Linkages 13 (Murrieta Creek) and 14 (Temecula Creek and portions of Pechanga Creek). MSHCP Conservation Objectives #2 and #5 for the pond turtle specify maintaining occupancy in 75% of 8 listed Core Areas; Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek are two of the Core Areas listed for this species. The turtle Core Areas include a 2 -km buffer of upland habitat surrounding each waterway. Upland habitat is important during both the overwintering period, and to provide nesting requirements. Pond turtles have been known to spend over half the year in upland habitat, and nesting females may travel 100 to200 meters away from water to find suitable nesting habitat. The proposed grading for a development pad on the southern parcel would extend nearly to the edge of the creek and would remove nesting and overwintering habitat. Nature Center and Trails Hub We have heard interest in replacing an urban Civic Site/institutional development with an interpretive nature center which would serve as a hub for hiking trails. Facilities, such as trails and interpretive centers, need to be placed so as not to degrade or compromise the 30-F 30-G 30-H 30-1 Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-1560192-17CPA0093) 4 ecological functions of the conserved habitats and should be placed in the least environmentally sensitive area. The Wildlife Agencies support environmental education in the MSHCP Conservation Area and recognize that public access was contemplated during MSHCP development. The locations of potential trails and interpretative centers were identified on Figure 7-4 of the MSHCP. An interpretive center and trails were not identified on the South Parcel in the MSHCP. The South Parcel location at the confluence of Linkage I 0 and Linkagel4 makes it a poor site for an interpretive center. Wildlife corridors (MSHCP "Linkages") are not appropriate locations for trail placement and the MSHCP specifically states that recreational trails should not be placed in wildlife crossings. The primary purpose of conserving and maintaining a wildlife corridor is to provide a connection for species sensitive to human presence to be able to cross safely through the larger regional landscape dominated by human activities while transiting from one MSHCP Core Reserve to another. Ongoing trespass issues and the development of unauthorized trails by the public are already having negative impacts on both Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The development of an interpretive center and hiking trails on the South Parcel, while less damaging than an institutional campus, would still attract human use into an area that currently provides sensitive live in habitat for pond turtles and mountain lions and that is intended to act a linkage in the MSHCP conservation configuration. The presence of human activity would discourage mountain lions from approaching the crucial wildlife crossing underneath the 1-15. Therefore, placement of an interpretive center and trails hub on the South Parcel would not be consistent with the goals of the MSHCP to protect wildlife habitat and movement. Draft EIR Conclusions for South Parcel The Draft EIR for the project concludes that the impacts to wildlife can be mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level, and development will not irreversibly sever any wildlife corridors or linkages. However, as discussed in the attached previous Wildlife Agency comment letters, the increased noise, lighting, traffic, human activity, and risk of trespass are not adequately analyzed or mitigated by the proposed mitigation measures of berms, directional lighting, and vegetation for development of the site. The long-term impacts to pond turtle, mountain lion viability, and potential severing of the linkage by the project were not adequately addressed or mitigated in the Draft EIR. Conclusion The development of the South Parcel would interfere with the junction of two MSHCP wildlife corridors (Linkages 10 and 14) whose width and distance from human activity are critical for the mountain lion population in the Santa Ana Mountains. This area is also important for maintaining the population of the western pond turtle in the Temecula area and in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The South Parcel is described for conservation by the MSHCP's Reserve Assembly Criteria (MSHCP Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.15); its development would not be consistent with the MSHCP. Development of the South Parcel would further limit mountain lion use of the existing bridge underneath 1-15, thereby completing the 30-1 30-J 30-K 30-L Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-I7CPA0093) 5 isolation of the Santa Ana Mountains cougar population and further compromising its long- term persistence. The currently proposed Project configuration would result in significant permanent damage to the MSHCP conservation strategy for mountain lion and pond turtle. The Wildlife Agencies support conservation of the site to meet MSHCP goals and maintain the integrity of the Linkages 10 and 14 in the presence of the larger proposed Altair project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this matter. We hope to continue working with the City to resolve these issues. If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like to schedule a meeting, please contact Karin Cleary -Rose of the Service at 760-322-2070, extension 406, or Heather Pert of the Department at 858-395-9692. Sincerely, KARIN Digitally signed by KARIN CLEARY-ROSE CLEARY—ROSED� s9 2017.02.14 for Kennon A. Corey Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leslie MacNair Inland Deserts Region Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife cc: Charles Landry, Director, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Matt Rahn, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Temecula JeffComerchero, Council Member, City of Temecula Michael S. Naggar, Council Member, City of Temecula James Stewart, Council Member, City of Temecula Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered Habitats League Cara Lacey, Project Director, The Nature Conservancy Enclosures Wildlife Agencies joint letter to the City of Temecula regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula 's project #PRI3-0043, the Altair Specific Plan. June 17, 2016. Wildlife Agencies Joint Project Review Letter to the City of Temecula regarding MSHCP JPR 14-05-27-01 for the City of Temecula 's project #PRI3-0043, the Altair Specific Plan. April 15, 2015. 30-L 30-M Comment Letter 30 Mayor Edwards and City Councilmembers (FWS/CDFW- WRIV-15B0192-17CPA0093) 6 References Beier, P. 1993. Determining Minimum Habitat Areas and Habitat Corridors for Cougars. Conserv Biol 7: 94-108. Burdett, C. L., K. R. Crooks, D. M. Theobald, K. R. Wilson, E. E. Boydston, L. M. Lyren, R. N. Fisher, T. W. Vickers, S. A. Morrison, and W. M. Boyce. 2010. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere I :art4. Dickson, B. G. and P. Beier. 2002. Home -range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:1235-1245 Ernest, H B. et al. 2003. Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations in California." Conservation Genetics 4(3):353-366. Ernest HB, T. W. Vickers, S. A. Morrison, M.I R. Buchalski, W. M. Boyce. 2014. Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma (Puma concolor) population. PLoS ONE 9(10): el 07985. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107985. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 2015. Altair Project Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report. Prepared for Ambient Communities, January 2015. Kerston, B. N. R. D., Spencer, J.M. Marzluff, J. Hepinstall-Cymerman, C.E. Grue. 2011. Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of western Washington. Ecological Applications. 21(8):2866-2881. [ RCA ] Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (Riverside County Government). 2015. Joint Project Review Document Package Joint Project Review 14-05- 27-01 for City of Temecula, PR13-0043, Altair Specific Plan, analyzing the proposed Altair project's consistency with the terms and conditions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Riverside, California. April 1, 2015. [ Sierra Club/CBD ] The Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Cougar Connection. 2016. Letter to the City of Temecula commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Altair Specific Plan, SCH no. 20141 1 1029. June 2016. Vickers T.W., Sanchez J.N., Johnson C.K., Morrison S.A., Botta R., Smith T. 2015. Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131490 Zeller, K.A., K. McGarigal, P. Beier, S.A. Cushman, T.W. Vickers, W.M. Boyce. 2014. Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology 29: 541-557. Comment Letter 31 From: Dan Silver <dsilverla@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:31 PM To: Maryann Edwards; Jeff Comerchero; Matt.Rahn@citycouncil.org; Mike Naggar; Michael.McCracken@citycouncil.org Cc: Luke Watson; Matt Peters; Stuart Fisk, AICP; Robert Honer; Robert Anselmo; Heather Pert; Karin Cleary -Rose; Charles Landry; Laurie Correa; Pam Nelson; Cara Lacey; Ray Johnson; Abby Smith; Kim Foy; Lynn Cullens; Vicki Long; winston vickers; Paul Beier Subject Agenda Item 12, February 14, 2017, Altair Civic Site - ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY Dear Mayor Edwards and Members of the City Council: Endangered Habitats League wishes to provide a response to the letter of February 14, 2017 from US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Dept of Fish and Wildlife. We most respectfullyreach a different conclusion as to the compatibility with the Temecula Creek corridor of a small and peripherally -sited interpretive center and trails for day time use. This conclusion 31-A is based on two considerations. First, based upon conversations with mountain lion specialists, it is the intrusion of noise, light and activity during nocturnal hours which is most inhibitory on corridor use by lions. We would not anticipate use of an interpretive facility at night. Second, as pointed out to me today by Dr. Paul Beier, the elimination of recreational use in a natural area immediately adjacent to a medium-sized city is not a realistic option. Rather, the real choice is between unregulated regulation or regulated recreation (properly designed trail system, signage, education, and interpretation). In EHL's view, the open space uses under consideration would provide an opportunity to achieve the latter, preferred goal. In our experience, with proper outreach and education, it is possible to work successfully with groups such as mountain bikers as long as some trails are provided. We agree that in an ideal world, little or no recreation or human activity would occur within important corridors, but carefully controlled use is actually the better way to go in this peri -urban location. If you do proceed with such limited open space uses, we urge ongoing coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority and the wildlife agencies on procedures for MSHCP consistency. Thank you once again for considering our views and please let me know of any questions. I am sorry that 1 will be unable to attend tonight's hearing. With best regards, Dan Silver Dan Silver, Executive Director Endangered Habitats League 8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite A 592 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267 213-804-2750 1 I 31-B 31-C 31-D dsilverla(cilme.com www.ehleague.org 2 Comment Letter 31 CENTER Ia: BIOLOGICAL Because hle is good December 6, 2017 SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1842 Via Electronic Mail and FedEx (w/attachments) Mayor Maryann Edwards and City Council City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Cougar Connection Re: Altair Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2014111029 Dear Mayor Maryann Edwards and City Council: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the "Center"), the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Cougar Connection (collectively, the "Conservation Groups") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). The FEIR does not cure the City's failures in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") to adequately analyze a range of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives; and to adequately describe the Project, its impacts, and mitigation. Indeed, the vast majority of the Conservation Groups' comments on the DIER have not been effectively addressed in the FEIR and responses to comments. Some of the continuing errors are detailed below but most other issues raised in the Conservation Groups' DEIR comments remain outstanding and so those comments are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the related project approval documents released by the City demonstrate further inconsistencies between the Project and state and federal laws. I. Background on the Conservation Groups. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with 1.5 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Riverside County. The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of over 800,000 members dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful Alaska. Arizona. California. Florida. Minnesota . Nevada. New Mexico. New York. Oregon. Vermont. Washington, DC P.O. Box 710. Tucson, AZ 85702-0710 tel: (520) 623.5252 fax: (520) 623.9797 www.BiologicalDiversity.org means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club reports that over 180,000 members reside in California. The San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club focuses on issues within the inland empire, including Riverside County. Cougar Connection is a non-profit, public interest organization that is dedicated to the preservation of Puma concolor, Cougar populations, open space, wildlife connectivity, and public education. II. The Development Agreement Is Unenforceable Because It Is Contrary To Public Policy. California law provides that the object of a contract must be lawful and not contrary to public policy. (Russell v. Soldinger (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 633, 641-642, citing Civ. Code, §§ 1607, 1608, 1667, 1596.) Courts will void any contract that is contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal. (Id. at 642.) In enacting the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the legislature set forth a policy that public agencies shall regulate activities "so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage..." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000.) Towards this end, CEQA sets forth a policy of ensuring public participation in the environmental planning process. (See Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 949 ("CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.").) Furthermore, CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code § 65300 et seq.) both provide for judicial review of agency actions through Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and/or 1085. The Development Agreement clearly is designed to subvert this framework for public participation and judicial review in the CEQA and Planning and Zoning law process. In particular, the Development Agreement reduces the amount of funds designated for mitigating the Project's impacts in the event that anyone seeks judicial review of the Project's approval documents. (Development Agreement at p. 30.) III. The Development Agreement Violates The First Amendment Rights Of The Public. The Development Agreement violates the United States and California constitutions because it is designed to frustrate the "right of access to the courts," which is one of the "most precious" liberties protected by the First Amendment. (See BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB (2002) 536 U.S. 516, 524-525.) Courts have further recognized that "government action designed to keep a citizen from initiating legal remedies sometimes infringes upon the First Amendment right to petition the courts." (Western Nat'l Mut. bis. Co. v. Lennes [In re Workers' Compensation Refund] (8th Cir. 1995) 46 F.3d 813, 823.) The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals further noted: 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 2 This right of court access cannot be impaired, either directly or indirectly...Indirect impairment may include "retaliatory action /taken) against an individual designed either to punish him for having exercised his constitutional right to seek judicial relief or to intimidate or chill his exercise of that right in the future. (Id. at 823, emphasis added.) Here, the Development Agreement seeks to punish any person—specifically persons with environmental concerns—who attempt to petition the courts to enforce California laws. The Development Agreement does this by preventing certain conservation activities from occurring if such a petition is brought. The Development Agreement attempts to require stakeholders to make a false choice between (1) enforcing California's environmental laws against the City and Project; and (2) ensuring adequate funds associated with the project go towards conservation. t The Development Agreement also improperly seeks to prevent courts—including the California Courts of Appeal and California Supreme Court—from ever reviewing the legality of the project or interpreting state law as applied to the project. The City and Ambient's offensive scheme to prevent the public from seeking enforcement of the law is unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, and has no place in a democratic system governed by the rule of law. The City needs to immediately remove this provision from the Development Agreement. IV. The FEIR's Responses To Comments Are Inadequate. CEQA provides that where "comments from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response." (Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 820.) CEQA further requires that when there is a difference expert opinion, the EIR needs to summarize the main points of disagreement and explain the agency's reasons for accepting one set of judgments instead of another. (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391; CEQA Guidelines § 15151.) In addition, an EIR may not rely upon conclusory or evasive responses to comments or fail to support its statements with scientific or objective data. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1371.) The Supreme Court has likewise held that "there must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response [to the comments received]. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1124.) As a related issue, the City cannot rely upon any mitigation based upon the $500,000 payment since the City is claiming that such payment will be significantly reduced in the event that any litigation is filed or other settlement reached regarding the various legal deficiencies with the Altair project. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 3 Unfortunately, the FEIR consistently fails to address the comments submitted by various stakeholders, including environmental and citizens groups and expert agencies. For example, Winston Vickers and Dr. Kathy Zeller sent a detailed letter explaining how the Project would be harmful for the Santa Ana mountain lions. (See FEIR Comment Letter 17.) Mr. Vickers and Dr. Zeller offered their "scientific opinion that the proposed Altair development will not only negatively impact mountain lion and other wildlife connectivity between the Santa Rosa Plateau and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Linkage 10 – upland linkage) and Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek connection), but will also negatively impact Constrained Linkage 14 (start of Santa Margarita River – Temecula Creek – Pechanga Creek connection) which is critical to mountain lion movement between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains east of Interstate 15 (I-15)." (Comment 17-D.) In responses to comments, the FEIR does not directly respond to the analysis offered by Mr. Vickers and Dr. Zeller, and but instead generally refers to various "mitigation measures" in the FEIR. Similarly, the FEIR does not directly respond to the expert opinions offered by the Wildlife Agencies, and instead merely refers the reader to general responses. Mr. Vickers and his team at the UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center submitted another letter on November 14, 2017, which noted that the responses in the FEIR to their comments were inadequate. (See UC Davis Letter at 2.) Likewise, the City has not published any response to the November 30, 2016 letter submitted by the Conservation Groups. Notably, the Planning Commission staff materials reference a "technical memo" (Attachment 12) that purportedly responded to the issued raised in the November 30, 2016 letter submitted by the Conservation Groups. However, Attachment 12 is merely a cover page stating "TECHNICAL MEMO ON DEIR COMMENTS AND NATURE CENTER TO BE PROVIDED." Because the technical memo appears not have existed at the time the Planning Commission decided to recommend approval of the Project, it is unclear how the Planning Commission could have "reviewed and considered the entire record" including "staff reports" and "technical studies," as the Planning Commission resolution claims. Indeed, based on the available information, it is not even clear that the Planning Commission even read or considered the letter submitted by the Conservation Groups, despite having over a year to do so. V. The FEIR Does Not Contain A Stable Project Description. The FEIR and staff materials vacillate between stating that the South Parcel will include a "nature center" or some other "institutional land use." (See, e.g., FEIR at 1-2.) By refusing to identify what the actual project under consideration is, the City fails to include a stable project description in the FEIR, thereby violating CEQA. Because there is no stable project description, the impacts of the Project—and appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate those impacts—are not identified in a manner that encourages informed decision-making and public participation. Moreover, as long as the FEIR and conditions of approval leave open the possibility that the South Parcel may be subject to some more "intense" civic/institutional use, the FEIR needs to disclose all impacts of such use, and adopt all feasible mitigation measures. The FEIR has not done this. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 4 VI. The Science Is Clear That The 1-15 Corridor Crossing Is Critical To The Survival Of The Santa Ana Mountain Lions. The Santa Ana mountain lions have the lowest genetic diversity of any population in California and show signs of inbreeding. (Zeller 2017.) This means there is a more critical need for connectivity between this population and other mountain lion populations. (Id.) In April 2017, the Royal Society Open Science published a study that confirmed that the Interstate 15 corridor is vital to the continued survival of the Santa Ana mountain lions. (Gustafson 2017.) The study noted that large residential developments—including Altair—"are proposed to be constructed within the two primary puma travel corridors between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Ranges." (Id.) The study concluded that these developments are "likely to further degrade the ability of pumas, especially dispersing males who are essential for gene flow, to move between the Eastern Peninsular and Santa Ana Mountain Ranges." (Id.) The study urged that the successful migration, reproduction, and long-term persistence of the Santa Ana mountain lions be considered in the planning process for any development near these crossing points. (Id.) The 2017 study is consistent with earlier research showing that Interstate 15 and associated development "have created a nearly impermeable barrier to puma movements, resulting in severe genetic restriction and demographic isolation of the small puma population." (Vickers 2015.) Despite this peer reviewed scientific evidence, the City disclaims responsibility for addressing the serious wildlife movement problems which will be caused and exacerbated by the Project, claiming that a wildlife crossing for Interstate 15 is a "regional issue." The City's position is striking because the City is insisting upon $28 million of "regional infrastructure" highway as part of the Project. (Staff Report at 14.) The City cannot on the one hand claim it has no money to address the wildlife connectivity problems caused by the Project while also stating that the Project will involve a $28 million highway, which will undoubtedly cause further wildlife movement problems. It is precisely this "build first, ask questions later" attitude to development and freeway building that has generated the sprawl, air pollution, wildlife connectivity problems that we have today in Southern California. The science shows that this Project may be the final straw that sets the Santa Ana mountain lions on a permanent path towards extinction. The City cannot move forward with business as usual in light of these profound and permanent impacts on California's wildlife. VII. The City's Claim That A Nature Center Is Needed Is Misleading. The Conservation Groups strongly support nature centers and other civic amenities designed to increase public appreciation and access to the outdoors. The Conservation Groups also understand that Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER") and San Diego State University ("SDSU") already operate an interpretive center to educate the community. In addition, the Conservation Groups have been informed by the SMER reserve manager that additional funding has been secured for upgrades and improvements to increase capacity at the interpretive center. The South Parcel — a critical wildlife corridor — is not an appropriate location for development. Mr. Vickers and the team at the UC Davis Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center submitted their expert opinion, which directly contradicts the findings of Ambient's consultant: 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 5 It is our opinion that prohibiting development of any kind of the southern parcel, with adequate fencing and other measures employed to prevent human intrusion into and impacts on the linkages and SMER, remains the best method to assure that these linkages function as well as possible. (UC Davis letter at 2.) The Specific Plan would fundamentally transform approximately half of the South Parcel, which is already a very constrained wildlife corridor subject to development pressure on all sides. The Specific Plan (at 3-70) shows that in addition to the actual development pad, a significant portion of the property would be "revegetated open space with trails..." (See also FEIR at Figure 2-1.) The City has not demonstrated that "revegetated open space with trails" will have the some species and wildlife movement benefits as undeveloped open space. Moreover, the "pedestrian circulation" diagram shows that virtually every corner of the South Parcel will be impacted with trails, roads, parking, and development. (See Specific Plan at Figure 3-38.) The FEIR later states that these trails will be ten feet wide, which is very wide for a walking trail (and wide enough for vehicles). (Appx. A at A-16.) Again, while the Conservation Groups strongly support nature centers, it is unwise and unnecessary to site a nature center and trail network in a regionally -significant wildlife corridor that is already under intense pressure from human development and related activities. This is particularly true when the Santa Ana mountain lion population is hanging on by a thread and needs a functional wildlife corridor in this area if it is to survive. Moreover, numerous stakeholders have informed the City that sensitive areas on the South Parcel and SMER already suffer from trespass. Adding a network of trails, a parking, and development to this area will likely increase such trespass. This is especially true given that the City and Ambient have thus far refused to agree to fund or implement 24-hour ranger service of the area to prevent trespass. In any event, the "Nature Center" option is not even a proposal to necessarily build a nature center. Buried deep in the FEIR (Table 1-2) is the striking admission that the permitted uses for the "Nature Center" option include "Conference Rooms, Library, Museum and Galleries, Restaurant, Offices, Parking Lot." (FEIR at 1-6.) These additional uses—particularly restaurants—will have impacts above and beyond a mere nature center, including attracting higher numbers of visitors, and visitors during evening hours. Nonetheless, the FEIR's Appendix A only analyzes impacts to aesthetics, air quality, GHGs, biological resources, and other areas in relation to a "nature center". For example, the FEIR states that "[t]he Nature Center use does not propose nighttime activities, and there would be no impacts from lighting in the conserved area adjacent to the South Parcel other than lighting needed for security." (Appx. A at A-24.) Restaurants, galleries, and offices could all involve night-time activities. CEQA requires that any "reasonably foreseeable" impacts be analyzed and mitigated — here, if the FEIR authorizes the development of any of the above listed types of development, than the FEIR needs to analyze the impacts of each type of development. In addition, the FEIR is misleading because while it repeatedly claims there would be no "night-time uses," the FEIR elsewhere states that operating hours would extend to "two hours after dusk..." (FEIR at 1-5.) "Night" begins at dusk or shortly thereafter. The FEIR also misleadingly refers to the Nature Center option as a "low intensity" use (FEIR at 3-9) even though the FEIR estimates that it will draw approximately 7,000 visitors per month. (Appx. A at A-37.) 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 6 The "Nature Center" option would not preserve any more of the South Parcel area than the originally proposed Civic Center use — Appendix A of the FEIR states that the Nature Center option would only preserve 37.24 acres of the South Parcel as natural open space, which "is the same as provided under the Civic Site use." (Appx. A at A-5.) The FEIR further concedes that the grading footprint of the Nature Center is only 0.7 less acres than the Civic/Institutional use. (Appx. A at A-13.) The FEIR concludes: "As concluded by the Draft EIR, given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the project site (approximately 1,800 feet) and its location (east of I-15), similar to the Civic/Institutional use, the Nature Center use would have no direct or indirect effect on this linkage." (Appx. A at 18.) This assertion is at odds with the expert opinions of the Wildlife Agencies and the wealth of evidence demonstrating that human activities can interfere with wildlife behavior (some of this evidence is discussed above and below). The Nature Center would reduce the width of Proposed Linkage 10 to only 980 feet and further impair the usability of the corridor. (Appx. A at A-18 and A-19.) Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 would be reduced to only 255 to 450 feet. (Appx. A at A-19.) Such narrow linkages will certainly impair the usability of these corridors for mountain lions and other species. The FEIR similarly states that the Nature Center would not generate "noise that exceed[s] residential noise standards." (Appx. A at A-25.) The FEIR fails to acknowledge that wildlife using the South Parcel may be adversely impacted by noise that is far below "residential noise standards" and that even small amounts of noise can deter wildlife from using the corridor. Similarly, the document authored by Helix consulting attached to the FEIR claims that the "hiking trails are expected to have minimal impact on overall wildlife movement, especially with the limitation of no nighttime use of the Nature Center." (Appx. B at 6.) The FEIR does not provide any evidence to support this claim, which is undermined by the admission that the development will be open at two hours after dusk. A. Development adjacent to habitat is known to impact wildlife behavior, particularly for mountain lions. There is a wealth of evidence documenting the known effects of human activity on wildlife behavior. (See, e.g., Slabbekoorn 2008.) Field observations and controlled laboratory experiments have shown that traffic noise can significantly degrade habitat value for migrating songbirds. (Ware et al. 2015.) This finding followed a lab results indicating that subjects exposed to 55 and 61 dBA simulated traffic noise exhibited decreased feeding behavior and duration, as well as increased vigilance behavior. (Id.) Such behavioral shifts increase the risk of starvation, thus decreasing survival rates. By including development in and adjacent to wildlife habitat, the Project will significantly increase noise in the area, both during construction and through increases in off-site traffic. A recent study also highlighted the detrimental impacts of siting development near areas protected for wildlife. The study noted that "Anthropogenic noise 3 and 10 dB above natural sound levels . .. has documented effects on wildlife species richness, abundance, reproductive success, behavior, and physiology." (Buxton, et al.) The study further noted that "there is evidence of impacts across a wide range of species [] regardless of hearing sensitivity, including direct effects on invertebrates that lack ears and indirect effects on plants 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 7 and entire ecological communities (e.g., reduced seedling recruitment due to altered behavior of seed distributors)." (Ibid.) Moreover, human transportation networks and development resulted in high noise exceedances in protected areas. (Ibid.) There also is strong evidence documenting the effects of human activity specifically on mountain lions. One study found that mountain lions are so fearful of humans and noise generated by humans that they will abandon the carcass of a deer and forgo the feeding opportunity just to avoid humans. (See Smith 2017.)' The study concluded that "non - consumptive forms of human disturbance may alter the ecological role of large carnivores by affecting the link between these top predators and their prey." In addition, the study found that mountain lions respond fearfully upon hearing human vocalizations. Another study demonstrates that mountain lions exposed to other evidence of human presence (lighting, vehicles, dogs) will impact mountain lion behavior. (Wilmers 2013.) Other studies documented diet shifts in mountain lions near human development, and recommended minimizing any development in mountain lion habitat. (Smith 2016; see also Smith 2015.) Additional studies similarly documented that mountain lions avoid "urban, agricultural areas, and roads and prefer[] riparian areas and more rugged terrain." (Zeller 2017; see also Vickers 2015.) One study found that over half (55 percent) of radio collared mountain lions in urban areas did not survive, and the majority were killed by humans either by vehicle strikes or using depredation permits. (Vickers 2015.) There is therefore strong evidence that the Project as proposed will have significant impacts on the wildlife corridors in the Project area. CEQA defines an impact as "significant" where the Project may "substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community..." (CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(1).) Here, all of the experts that have weighed in on the issue (except for the developer's consultant) agree that the Project may threaten to eliminate an animal community — the Santa Ana mountain lions. The FEIR has failed to acknowledge, analyze, or mitigate this profound impact of the Project. B. The FEIR needs to disclose that development on the South Parcel is included in the FEIR as a means to accommodate dirt generated by the Altair development. Over the last few weeks, it is come to the attention of the Conservation Groups that there are no actual plans or funding to construct a nature center on the South Parcel. Instead, the Conservation Groups now understand that the FEIR allows for unspecified future development on the South Parcel so that Ambient can store massive amounts of dirt generated by the project, thereby avoiding the need for Ambient to spend money to transfer the dirt to an offsite location. Stockpiling hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of dirt on a wildlife corridor in order to reduce costs of a residential and highway development project is an egregious abuse of California's natural resources. The FEIR needs to be honest with the public and decision -makers about the true impacts of the Project and why certain development is being proposed. 2 See also Sean Greene, "How a fear of humans affects the lives of California's mountain lions," Los Angeles Times (June 27, 2017), available at http://beta.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-pumas-human-noise-20170627- story.html. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 8 Whether or not anything is ever built on the South Parcel, stockpiling dirt will harm the ecological values of the South Parcel. If the City and Ambient cannot afford to dispose of the dirt generated by the Project in a responsible manner, then the City and Ambient should downsize the project so it produces less dirt, including by removing the Western Bypass and/or Village G. In short, the City cannot hide by an empty promise to build a "nature center" while pillaging a wildlife corridor to accommodate a highway project. In any event, the FEIR concedes that the Nature Center option will have similar impacts on MSHCP conservation areas as the Civic/Institutional uses. (Appx. A at A-26.) These impacts are impermissible under the MSHCP for the same reasons the Civic/Institutional uses are impermissible. The FEIR similarly claims that "overall human activity" will be reduced with the Nature Center, but does not provide any evidence that this is actually true. In addition, the FEIR removes the 10 -foot high berm and "living walls" from the Nature Center option even though such features are likely to reduce impacts in either the Civic/Institutional or Nature Center options. (See FEIR at 3-16 & 17.) Moreover, as noted by the Wildlife Agencies, the FEIR fails to compare the Nature Center option to "baseline" conditions and instead compares it to the Civic/Institutional use alternative. If a component of the Project is the Nature Center, than the FEIR needs to analyze impacts of the Nature Center in light of existing (baseline) conditions. The "comparison" analysis misleads the decision -makers and public. VIII. The FEIR Fails To Analyze or Mitigate Impacts To the Western Pond Turtle. The FEIR fails to include sufficient mitigation for the western pond turtle ("WPT")—a species of special concern. CDFW defines a species of special concern as a species that, among other things, "is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status." (California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern (last visited Oct. 9, 2014), http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/.) CDFW aims to "achieve conservation and recovery of these animals before they meet California Endangered Species Act criteria for listing as threatened or endangered." (Id.) CDFW states that species of special concern "should be considered during the environmental review process." (Id.; CEQA Guidelines § 15380(b)(B).) An impact to wildlife is significant where it "substantially reduce[s] the number or restrict[s] the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) CDFW interprets this provision to apply to species of special concern, such as the WPT. (California Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, Species of Special Concern, supra ("[Section] 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, which address how an impact is identified as significant, are particularly relevant to SSCs.").) The City must mitigate significant effects whenever feasible. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.5(d)(2)(A).) WPT are listed as species of special concern because their numbers have decreased due to increasing habitat destruction and disturbance, especially from farming operations, and depredation from invasive species, such as bullfrogs and bass. (Jennings et al. (1994); Spinks et al. (2003); Pilliod et al. (2013).) WPT make wide-ranging use of their aquatic habitat, sometimes migrating more than one kilometer per year. (Pilliod et al.) WPT are known to nest as far as 400 meters away from streams (Id.). Other studies have found that WPT spend as much as seven months in terrestrial habitat and can be found overwintering up to 500 meters from 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 9 aquatic habitat, as well as migrating over 1 km. (Holland 1994). WPT that inhabit non -permanent bodies of water exclusively overwinter in terrestrial habitat, whereas aquatic overwintering occurs in populations inhabiting permanent ponds (Zaragoza 2015.) Here, the City has claimed that "steep terrain" will ensure that WPT stay in Murrieta Creek and are not impacted by development in the Project area. (FEIR at 3-336.) This claim is inconsistent with the studies cited above. Notably, no surveys have been conducted during breeding season to assess whether the City's speculative claim has any merit. The City needs conduct proper surveys for WPT and/or limit the development to areas outside of the dispersal zones for WPT. IX. The FEIR's San Diego Ambrosia Plan Is Inadequate. The FEIR contains the same inadequate San Diego ambrosia mitigation measure as the DEIR. Even if the FEIR did not impermissibly defer development of mitigation, the proposed mitigation measure may still not be effective. A report submitted to CDFW concluded that a mere 32 percent of translocation efforts were successful. (Fiedler 1991.) The report concludes that agencies should be "extremely cautious" in any mitigation agreement allowing for translocation. (Ibid.) A CDFW comments document entitled "Plant Translocation Database Summary" similarly stated that "translocation appears to be an unsuccessful form of mitigation."3 The document further stated any translocation activities "should always establish biologically justifiable success criteria and long-term monitoring plans." (Id.) A similar CDFW comment document stated that "CDFW, in general, does not recommend translocation of rare plants as a mitigation/minimization measure to reduce adverse effects from a project. Successful implementation of translocation is rare with minimal documented success. Even if translocation is initially successful, translocated species typically fail to persist over time.s4 The City has not offered any evidence or analysis that translocating San Diego ambrosia is an effective mitigation measure. The FEIR needs to either (1) avoid development in areas containing San Diego ambrosia or (2) provide a plan for translocation with success criteria and a contingency plan in the event that successful translocation and establishment of the new population does not occur. Such a plan needs to acknowledge that existing studies X. The Project Is Still Inconsistent With The MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies have already repeatedly informed the City in detail about the various ways in which the Project violates the MSHCP. Accordingly to the Wildlife Agencies, the currently estimated acreage shortfall for the Project is 163 acres, although the exact amount could be slightly higher or lower. The FEIR's responses to comments on these issues are completely inadequate. If the City approves the Project as proposed, it will be in violation of the MSHCP, which is a permit issued pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP") (Cal. Fish & Game Code §§ 2800-2840.) Accordingly, the City will also be in violation of both these laws if the City approves the Project as proposed. 3 See email chain re Tri Valley Land Exchange at PDF p. 151. " Id. at PDF 147. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 10 If the City wishes to approve a project that is inconsistent with the conservation goals in criteria cells outlined MSHCP (as is the case here), the City needs to obtain approval of a Criteria Refmement or amendment to the MSHCP, and undergo appropriate public process and CEQA review of such an activity. The Criteria Refmement process requires the preparation of (1) Project Information and (2) an Equivalency Analysis. Project Information must contain: (1) a description of the planning area for the project; (2) a narrative and graphic description of the project; (3) a narrative and graphic description of biological information, including vegetation mapping and species surveys; (4) a narrative and graphic description of the project's efforts to be consistent with the MSHCP Criteria and an explanation as to why consistency is infeasible; and (5) a quantification and characterization of the effects/benefits of the proposed project with the proposed Criteria Refinement on habitats, species, and overall MSHCP Conservation Area design and function, among other items. Moreover, the Equivalency Analysis must address the effects of the project on: (1) Habitats; (2) Covered Species; (3) Core Areas; (4) Linkages and Constrained Linkages; (5) Non -Contiguous Habitat blocks; (6) MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management; (7) Ecotones and other conditions affecting species diversity. (AR 003641.). The Equivalency Analysis must also demonstrate equivalent or greater acreage contributed to the MSHCP Conservation Area. If a project is determined to be "biologically equivalent or superior," then no amendment to the MSHCP is required; if the project is not determined to be "biologically equivalent or superior," then the project is an "unacceptable deviation" from the MSHCP such that an amendment to the MSHCP is required. Among other qualities, for substitute MSHCP acreage to be "biologically equivalent or superior," it must have similar wildlife connectivity values. The FEIR does not acknowledge or abide by this process — a process to which the City agreed when it became a permittee of the MSHCP. Instead, the FEIR misleadingly refers to such substantive revisions to conservation requirements and acreage in the MSHCP as "possible procedural steps." (FEIR at 3-11.) Given that the Criteria Refinement process implicates discretionary decision-making by agencies, it should undergo appropriate CEQA review. This would necessarily require circulating a revised EIR to addresses these issues, as discussed further below. XI. The Project's Inconsistency With The MSHCP Renders The Project Inconsistent With The General Plan. In addition to violating the MSHCP (and by extension the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and the NCCP Act), the Project violates the General Plan. One of the components of the General Plan is consistency with the MSHCP: The City will continue to participate in multiple -species habitat conservation planning efforts in western Riverside County, and will ensure that City land use policy and decisions are consistent with the recommendations of adopted habitat plans (General Plan at LU -40, emphasis added.) More specifically, OS -9 states: "Require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 11 and Game, and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance." (General Plan at OS -34, emphasis added.) The General Plan further provides in OS -35 that development -associated impacts must be reviewed for consistency with MSHCP reserve and buffer requirements, as well as various other MSHCP policies and requirements, including MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines. (See General Plan at OS -35 — 36.) Here, the City has refused to respect the MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the Wildlife Agencies, as well as other MSHCP policies outlined in previous letters by the Wildlife Agencies. Even if the MSHCP were merely a "recommendation" as referenced in LU -40 (which it is not), the General Plan requires that land use decisions are consistent with such "recommendations." Here, the Project is inconsistent with such "recommendations," as well as other MSHCP policies. Because the Project is clearly inconsistent with policies described in the General Plan (and General Plan EIR), the City has violated California law. (See Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (201 1) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1562-1563; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. County v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336; Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.) XII. The City Should Consider Recirculating The FEIR After Revising The FEIR To Demonstrate Consistency With The MSHCP. The Conservation Groups understand that there is a possibility that the City will substantially revise the FEIR prior to December 12 in order to "cure" some of incorrect analysis and conclusions in the FEIR regarding the MSHCP. The Conservation Groups fully support the City revising the EIR to cure these and other defects in the FEIR. However, the Conservation Groups respectfully urge the City to recirculate the FEIR for public review after such revisions, or—at a minimum—delay the December 12 hearing to allow the environmental community, the Wildlife Agencies, and other stakeholders to adequately assess such revisions and provide comments and feedback. Such major revisions to the FEIR without recirculation may be inconsistent with Public Resources Code section 21092.1. This section states that "[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21 153 before certifying the environmental impact report." CEQA Guideline 15088.5 further clarifies that "As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information." Significant new information includes "a disclosure that (1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or a new mitigation measure; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted; (3) a feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the project's significant impacts but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or (4) the draft EIR 'was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 12 precluded." (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors, 216 Cal. App. 4th 614, 654-655.) Applied here, if the FEIR is revised to truthfully disclose the inconsistency between the proposed project and the MSHCP, then the revised FEIR likely would disclose a "substantial increase in the severity of an environment impact," given that inconsistencies with applicable plans are significant impacts under CEQA. Similarly, the Draft EIR's serious errors regarding MSHCP consistency—and a myriad of other topics—arguably rendered the Draft EIR (and current version of the Final EIR) so "inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." In addition, the FEIR has already been revised such that conservation requirements in the DEIR have now been removed— such as a donation of a conservation easement for 269.6 acres for conservation. While courts have not required recirculation in some instances in which additional studies were added to support the analysis in an EIR, this is not the case here—the EIR is in need of major revisions, thereby militating in favor of recirculation. The Wildlife Agencies joined in this request in their most recent letter of November 14, 2017: A correct project -specific analysis of MSHCP Cell Criteria and reserve assembly goals has not been done by the City or Project Applicant. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) also concluded that the project is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria. The Wildlife Agencies request that this analysis be developed and presented for public review in a revised and recirculated FEIR. Given that the Project, as proposed, is not consistent with the MSHCP Cell Criteria (even when selecting the Nature/Cultural Center Use variant of the Project), a Criteria Refinement (as described in MSHCP Section 6.5) is also required and should be included in the revised and recirculated FEIR. Moreover, as discussed above, a Criteria Refinement or amendment to the MSHCP are arguably discretionary projects necessitating CEQA review. In addition, the MSHCP functions as a permit under both the ESA and the NCCP Act. Notably, the NCCP Act expressly states that projects undertaken within an NCCP area are not exempt from CEQA, and the NCCP Act does not alter the applicability of the CEQA. (Cal. Fish & Game Code § 2826.) Even if CEQA did not require recirculation, the City can demonstrate it is making a good faith effort to address the problems with the Project by recirculating the FEIR. At a minimum, the City should delay certification of the FEIR for at least 30 days so that the public, the Wildlife Agencies, and the environmental community can participate in the process by providing comments and feedback. XIII. The FEIR Fails To Accurately Disclose The Project's Impacts On Water Supply. The FEIR does not remedy the DEIR's failure to address the impacts of the Project on water resources. As noted by the Conservation Groups' letter of November 30, 2016, the DEIR did not analyze how the impact of adding 4,000 people to the service area of the Rancho California Water District ("RCWD") will affect its ability to supply adequate water. (Conservation Groups' Comment letter on DEIR, 11/30/16, p. 24.) Adding 4,000 new residents to Southern California will increase the strain on California's extremely limited water resources, and the City must analyze the impacts therefrom. The California Supreme Court has held that 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 13 that "[tjhe ultimate question under CEQA, moreover, is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project." (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 434, emphasis added.) The FEIR does not provide information regarding the supply challenges posed by a growing population. The Project's strain on RCWD's supply capabilities has been magnified as the FEIR states that RCWD serves 185,105 people, revised up from the DEIR's number of 134,000. (FEIR at 2-23.) The FEIR provides an accounting of its current supply, but offers no information concerning how it will supply an increased service population other than a brief reference to water transfers exchanges to "help alleviate water shortages in the region." (FEIR at 2-24.) The recent drought in California has highlighted the perilous nature of Southern California's water supply system. The FEIR summarizes the origins of RCWD supply, with 36% coming from groundwater in the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin ("TVGB"); 58% imported by Metropolitan Water District ("MWD"); and 6% coming from recycled water. (FEIR at 2-24.) The FEIR does not address the current status of the TVGB, nor its capacity to maintain pumping into the future. Nor does the FEIR address the possibility of water imports from Metropolitan Water District being curtailed, which occurred in 2015, and could occur in the near future given the pressure on California's water supply from climate change and population increase. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) The DEIR notes the RCWD Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which demonstrates the district's ability to meet demands under a supply shortage of up to 50%. (DEIR, Appx. J at ES -10.) However, the FEIR fails to address whether this plan would be adequate given the increase in RCWD's service population from what was listed in the DEIR. (FEIR at 2-23.) The Project would increase the strain on an already stressed water supply system in the Temecula area. The FEIR fails to adequately assess the impact on limited water supplies by the Project's increased population. The Project's environmental documents rely on a continuation of the water supply status quo, failing to consider a future where decreased precipitation in the State will constrain water deliveries and further exhaust groundwater stores. XIV. The FEIR Does Not Adequately Analyze Project Impacts On Air Quality. The FEIR's air quality impacts analysis is flawed because it fails to take into account all sources of air quality impacts resulting from the Project and fails to adopt all feasible measures to reduce the Project's significant air quality impacts. The Project will further degrade the region's air quality by generating considerable emissions from the construction phase, ongoing operations, and the many miles of vehicle trips generated by the Project. The FEIR does not address the air quality impacts that will be felt by residents living in homes next to the proposed four -lane Western Bypass. The FEIR relies on the DEIR finding of no significant impacts due to exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants ("TACs") emitting sources, the significance level determined by being within 500 feet of freeways with 100,000 or more vehicles per day. (DEIR at 3.2-29.) The DEIR found no significant impact because the Project site is not within the zone of influence of a major TACs source, but it did not consider the Bypass to be a major source of TACs, nor did it analyze the impact of the Western Bypass in 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 14 regards to other pollutants. The FEIR incorrectly fmds no significant impact based only on analysis of a single pollutant, without further assessment of Bypass -related emissions. The Bypass Project development may occur within 45 feet of the "centerline of the Western Bypass." (DEIR at 3.10-45.) Numerous studies have documented the air pollution and health impacts associated with siting expressways and freeways in close proximity to residential development, particularly upon sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. (Lin 2012.) A review of 700 studies concluded that pollution causes asthma attacks in children, the onset of childhood asthma, impaired lung function, premature death and death from cardiovascular diseases, and cardiovascular morbidity.5 The study concluded that the most affected area was 300 to 500 meters from the highways (984 feet to 1640 feet). Other studies have reached similar conclusions. (Anderson 2011.) Living near expressways also increases the likelihood that residents will suffer from dementia. (Chen 2017.) The University of Southern California's Environmental Health Centers have also collected data and studies showing risks and health impacts to pregnant women, babies, children, teenagers, adults, and seniors of living by a freeway.6 Based on this research, the 500 11. threshold cited by the DEIR is insufficient to properly assess the air quality threats posed by the western bypass to the Project area. The FEIR does not include analysis or attempt to quantify the significant impacts of reactive organic gases ("ROGs") and oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") emissions that the DEIR claims are "unavoidable." (DEIR at 3.2-24.) The Project is located within an air basin that is already out of attainment for ozone, the Project would only exacerbate the problem. Despite the severe health effects of such pollutants on sensitive receptors, there is no attempt to implement mitigation measures to lessen the impact. The DEIR only recommends that individuals stay indoors on unhealthy days to escape the health hazard to which the Project will directly contribute. The FEIR fails to offer appropriate mitigation measures, in addition to ignoring the possibility of alternatives that do not site an expressway in close proximity to sensitive receptors such as children and the elderly. The FEIR analysis is also deficient in that it does not properly analyze construction impacts. The DEIR applies Localized Significance Threshold ("LST") to assess project impacts. (DEIR at 3.2-15.) This is improper as the LST methodology is meant for projects of 5 acres or less, as noted in the Conservation Groups' Comment Letter at page 5. The FEIR clarifies its use of the LST methodology, saying the 5 -acre emissions limit will be used as a screening tool for projects larger than 5 acres, as emissions below the 5 -acre LST threshold would clearly be acceptable from a site greater than 5 acres. (FEIR at 3-276.) If a project emits more than the 5 - acre LST threshold, the FEIR indicates a "refined analysis" will be performed. (FEIR at 3-276.) Aside from an improper implementation of the SCAQMD methodology, the FEIR also fails to describe in any detail the "refined analysis" of pollutant emissions. Without a clearly established method for assessing the air quality impacts of Project construction, the FEIR does not satisfy its 5 Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic -Related Air Pollution, Traffic -Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure. and Health Effects. Health Effects Institute: Boston (2010). 6 See http://envhealthcenters.use.edu/infogranhics/infographic-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffic- pollution/references-living-near-busy-roads-or-traffio-pollution (collecting studies); see also http://www.latimes.com/oroiects/la-me-freeway-pollution/. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 15 mandate as an informational document. (County of lnyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 201.) XV. The FEIR Alternatives Analysis Does Not Comply With CEQA. CEQA mandates that significant environmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Guidelines §§ I5002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Moreover, although "an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project ... it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision decision-making and public participation." (Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) Additionally, the "key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts." (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1089.) The CEQA process "is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project," it must allow for revision based on unforeseen revelations during the investigative process. (County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CaLApp.3d 185, 199.) The FEIR fails to include a reasonable range of altematives while lacking sufficient analysis of those proposed alternatives. The FEIR and responses to comments "fixed" the results of the alternatives analysis by including a civic center and elementary school as project objectives, limiting the range of alternatives considered. (FEIR at 3-346.) "Fixing" the analysis in such a way by unreasonably narrowing the range of alternatives is a violation of CEQA. (See Save Round Valley Alliance v. County oflnyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437, 1456-57.) The FEIR, in defending its narrow choice of alternatives, asserts that CEQA guidelines have been satisfied because the alternatives "would feasibly attain most of the Project Objectives." (FEIR at 3-346.) This interpretation is based on the assumption that the civic center and elementary school are legitimate project objectives, though in reality such uses are more likely to be concessions to the local authorities overseeing the approval of a proposed residential development project. By including these objectives, the FEIR does not analyze alternatives with a smaller footprint, a transportation - oriented design built around existing transit nodes, or a mixed-use development combined with greater habitat preservation and enhancement for wildlife. The FEIR and responses to comments provides insufficient comparative analysis of the proffered alternatives, failing to satisfy the CEQA requirements. The absence of a quantitative, comparative analysis of data prohibits meaningful consideration of an alternative in the CEQA process. (Kings County Farm Bureau v.' City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 735.) The FEIR relies on the alternatives comparison in table 5-3 of the DEIR. (DEIR at 5-18.) This table lists impacts of each alternative and whether the impact is reduced, similar to, or increased relative to the proposed Project. (DEIR at 5-18.) Such a lack of empirical specificity is hardly a quantitative and meaningful comparison of the alternatives. The goal ofCEQA's alternative analysis is to best inform the decision -maker of potentially less -harmful alternatives, this task is made unreasonably difficult when levels of harm are not clearly quantified. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 16 XVI. The FEIR Fails To Demonstrate That A Smaller Project is Infeasible. CEQA provides that a lead agency cannot "simply rely on evidence proffered by the project's proponent regarding infeasibility; instead, the agency 'must independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith.'" (Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg? Planning Agency (C.D.Cal. 2013) 916 F. Supp. 2d 1098, citing Save Round Valley Alliance v. Cnty. q/Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1460.) In addition, whether a project is economically unfeasible "is not measured by increased cost or lost profit, but upon whether the effect of the proposed mitigation is such that the project is rendered impractical." (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 (internal citation omitted).) Moreover, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180, the Court agreed with the trial court that the record did not contain analysis of the project alternatives in terms of comparative costs, comparative profit or losses, or comparative economic benefit to the project applicant or the community at large. The Court held that the "scant figures" in the record were insufficient to demonstrate that the additional costs of downsized project rendered it infeasible to proceed with the project. (Id. at 1181.) Here, the City and Ambient have rejected smaller versions of the project on "feasibility" grounds Yet, neither the City nor Ambient have offered any evidence that a smaller version of the Project is infeasible, as required by the above authorities. To the extent Ambient is claiming that the large size of the Project is mandated in order to fund the Western Bypass, then the City should consider removing the Western Bypass from being a condition of the development. What the City and Ambient cannot do is play a "shell game" in which each claims its hands are tied in downsizing the scale of the project. XVII. The FEIR Should Incorporate Rooftop Solar And Demonstrate Compliance With Other GHG Policies. The Conservation Groups appreciate the revisions to the FEIR, which strengthen MM GHG 1. However, the Conservation Groups again request that at least 75 percent of the Project's energy generation needs be offset by onsite renewable energy and/or energy efficiency measures. Furthermore, the City and Ambient have an opportunity to be a leader in fighting climate change by including a project requirement of zero net energy ("ZNE") for GHG emissions. ZNE projects intend to achieve that goal through reducing onsite GHG emissions to the greatest extent practicable, but also by offsetting any other emissions through local emissions reductions projects. The Project should implement such measures because CEQA requires the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. Such measures could include more robust EV charging requirements, more onsite renewable energy, and a program to offset the remaining GHG emissions locally. 7 See, e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newhall Ranch Resource and Development Management and Development Plan. Final Additional Environmental Analysis, Appendix 2.1, available at htto://planning.lacountv.gov/assets/upl/case/tr 53108 appendix-2-0-cdfw-final-aea-excerpts.pdf. 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 17 If the City approves the Project with a ZNE requirement, any associated offset program must ensure "additionality." California law establishes specific standards for greenhouse gas offset credits used in the AB 32 cap -and -trade system. Health and Safety Code section 38562(d) requires, in relevant part, that: (1) The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable by the state board. (2) For regulations pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 38570) [i.e., regulations implementing the market-based cap -and -trade system], the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur. (3) If applicable, the greenhouse gas emission reduction occurs over the same time period and is equivalent in amount to any direct emission reduction required pursuant to this division. In particular, the two-part definition of"additional" under subdivision (d)(2) requires not only that credited reductions are not otherwise legally required, but also that credited reductions would not otherwise occur in the absence of the offset project. This definition of "additional" also applies in the CEQA context, as the regulatory history of the relevant CEQA Guidelines makes clear. The CEQA Guidelines specify that only GHG reductions that are "not otherwise required" may be used to offset project emissions. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (c)(3).) However, as the California Resources Agency's Final Statement of Reasons for adopting this Guideline explains, the "not otherwise required" language was intended to make clear that only "additional" emissions reductions—that is, reductions not otherwise required by law or likely to occur anyway—may be used to generate offsets for CEQA mitigation.8 The Final Statement of Reasons explicitly interprets CEQA's mitigation requirements, including requirements governing use of offsets, as "consistent with the Legislature's directive in AB32 that reductions relied on as part of a market-based compliance mechanism must be 'in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur.' (Ibid.) There are key GHG policies and plans that should be analyzed in a recirculated FEIR (or at least in an addendum). For instance, there does not appear to be any analysis of consistency with Executive Order ("EO") 5-3-05. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497, 515 ("SANDAG") stated that it is not dispositive whether EO S-3-05 is an "adopted GHG reduction plan" or accepted threshold of significance. Instead, SANDAG observed that EO S -3-05's "goal of reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes necessary to stabilize the climate. This scientific information has ° California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 at 48, 87-90 (December 2009). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 18 important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project like SANDAG's regional transportation plan." (Ibid.) SANDAG also approvingly cited a letter from the California Attorney General noting that infrastructure and land use decisions "may lock in transportation inefficiencies and preclude any realistic possibility of meeting the Executive Order's goal of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions." (Id. at 509, emphasis added.) A recirculated FEIR should analyze and disclose whether the Project will lock in such transportation inefficiencies and potentially frustrate the state's ability to meet the long-term goal in EO S-3-05. Similarly, the FEIR does not appear to analyze how the Project meets the state's 2050 GHG targets set forth EO B-16-2012, which (1) directs state agencies to facilitate the rapid commercialization of zero -emission vehicles and (2) establishes a goal of an "80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in California by 2050 as compared to 1990 levels." (Bay Area Citizens v. Association of Bay Area Governments (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 966, 980.) The FEIR also does not consider whether the Project is consistent with Health & Safety Code § 38566. This section states: "In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030." Applied here, this section indicates there is a state-wide policy that all projects must demonstrate at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions by December 31, 2030. Accordingly, the City must consider whether the Project is consistent with Health & Safety Code § 38566, the various scoping plans published by the California Air Resources Board, and the various plans and policies discussed in the other letters submitted by the Conservation Groups. In addition, applying the principles set forth in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 225, the City not demonstrated that any purported "project -level" reduction in GHGs associated with the Project is consistent with the state-wide goal of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by December 31, 2030. Finally, the FEIR does not appear to comply with the guidance in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1012 (Nov. 16, 2017) ["Cleveland HP']. Cleveland III held that an EIR that did not include an alternative that could significantly reduce total vehicle miles travelled did not comply with CEQA. (Id. at 26- 27.) Here, because all of the studied alternatives involve the same site location—the VMT for each alternative is likely to be very similar. The FEIR does not disclose specific VMT figures for each alternatives. Such an omission of an alternative with a significantly reduced VMT is "inexplicable given ... that the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on -road transportation will not succeed if the amount of driving, or vehicle miles traveled, is not significantly reduced." (Id. at 27.) XVIII. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is Conclusory And Inadequate. The Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") fails to provide substantial evidence supporting its claim that the Project's benefits outweigh impacts on air quality GHGs, noise, and traffic. The SOC merely contains the bare statement that such impacts are outweighed 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 19 without any analysis. (See SOC at 2.) The SOC contains a similar conclusory claim that all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted. CEQA requires substantial evidence supporting this claim with respect to each area of significant impacts. XIX. Other Problems Remain With The Project. The environmental community and other stakeholders have submitted numerous letters describing various other problems with the Project. Some of the villages suffer from inadequate fencing around all areas adjacent to wildlife habitat, which will lead to conflicts between people and wildlife. While language in the Specific Plan might call for fencing, the Project lacks specific and enforceable measures requiring such fencing as a condition of project approval. The City should coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to development specific conditions of approval/mitigation measures to require the fencing called for by the Wildlife Agencies. XX. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Project. In light of many significant, unavoidable environmental impacts that will result from the Project, we strongly urge the Project not be approved in its current form. We ask that the City and Ambient work collaboratively with stakeholders to scale back the size of the Project to alleviate the impacts on wildlife corridors. In furtherance of that goal, we request that the City postpone the hearing set for December 12 so that the City can work Ambient, the Wildlife Agencies, and the environmental community to develop an acceptable solution. Sincerely, J.P. Rose, Staff Attomey Ileene Anderson, Senior Scientist Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California, 90017 (213) 785-5400 jrose(a,biologicaldiversity.org Kim F. Floyd Conservation Chair San Gorgonio Chapter Sierra Club /s/ Vicki Long President, Cougar Connection 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 20 References (Attached on CD) Andersen, Z.J. et al., Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Long -Term Exposure to Traffic -related Air Pollution: A Cohort Study, Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 183: 455-461 (2011). Benson, J.F., J.A, Sikich, S.P.D. Riley, Individual and Population Level Resource Selection Patterns of Mountain Lions Preying on Mule Deer along an Urban-Wildland Gradient, PLoS ONE 11(7): e0158006 (2016). Buxton, R. T. et al., Noise Point on is Pervasive in U.S. Protected Areas, Science 356, 531-533 (2017). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDWF), Department Bulletin: Policy and Procedures for Conservation Translocations of Animals and Plants (Nov. 2017). California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 at 48, 87-90 (December 2009). Chen, H. et al., Living near major roads and the incidence of dementia, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis: a population -based cohort study, Lancet, 389: 718-726 (2017). Email chain re Tri Valley Land Exchange (2014). Fielder, P.L., Final Report: Mitigation Related Transplantation, Relocation and Reintroduction Projects Involving Endangered and Threatened, and Rare Plant Species in California, (1991). Greene, S., How a fear of human affects the lives of California's mountain lions, LA Times (2017). Gustafson, K.D., et al., A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population, R. Soc. Open Sci. 4: 170115 (2017). Holland, D.C., The western pond turtle: habitat and histoty. Final Rep. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Adm. Proj. 92-068, Contr. DE-BI79-92B62137 (1994). Jennings, M. et al., Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, CAL. DEP'T. OF FISH &WILDLIFE 101, 102 (1994). Lin, S. et al., Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic, Environmental Research Section A, 88: 73-81 (2002). Pilliod, D. et al., Terrestrial Movement Patterns of Western Pond Turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in Central California, 8 HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION &BIOLOGY 207, 207 (2013). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 21 Slabbekoorn, H. and E. A. Ripmeester, Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation, Molecular Ecology 17, 72-83 (2008). Smith, J.A. et al., Fear of the human 'super predator' reduces feeding time in large carnivores, Proc. R. Soc. 13284: 20170433 (2017). Smith, J.A., Y. Wang, C.C. Wilmers, Spatial Characteristics of Residential Development Shift Large Carnivore Prey Habits, Journal of Wildlife Management. 80(6):1040-1048 (2016). Smith, J.A., Y. Wang, C.C. Wilmers, Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human -induced fear, Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20142711 (2015). Spinks, P. et al., Survival of the Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) in an Urban California Environment, 113 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 257, 257 (2003). Vickers, T.W. et al., Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape, PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490 (2015). Vickers, T.W. and K.C. Drayer, Wildlife Health Center, Letter re Planning Commission Agenda Item #2, Altair Project Final EIR (Nov. 15, 2017). Ware, H. E. et al., A Phantom Road Experiment Reveals Traffic Noise is an Invisible Source of Habitat Degradation, PNAS 112, 12105-12109 (2015). Wilmers, C.C. et al., Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator, the Puma, PLoS ONE 8(4): e60590 (2013). Zaragoza, G. et al., Terrestrial habitat use by western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in the Sierra foothills. Journal of Herpetology, 49(3):437-441 (2015). Zeller, K.A. et al., Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition, Landscape Ecol, DOI 10.1007/s10980-017-0489-8 (2017). Zeller, K.A. et al., Multi-level, multi -scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces for conservation planning: Pumas as a case study, PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179570 (2017). 12/6/2017 Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Altair Project Page 22 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation Lots within the Altair Specific Plan area may be consolidated, subdivided or otherwise adjusted as allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Temecula and other applicable codes. Such adjustments do not require an amendment this Specific Plan, as long as the resultant lot(s) comply with the intent and guidelines of this Specific Plan. All lots shall meet the minimum lot dimensions outlined in Section 10, Development Standards. This Specific Plan does not limit construction of buildings over lot lines of contiguous lots under the same ownership. 11.7 Financing Strategies Funding for the construction of the infrastructure and facilities at Altair may be provided by a variety of potential sources, such as Developer Financing; Development Impact Fees (DIF); Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF); Federal, State or Local Grant Funding; or revenue from any Community Facilities District, Assessment District, Infrastructure Financing District, Gasoline Taxes, or the General Fund. In several instances including but not limited to the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge, the sewer facilities, parks, etc., the developer shall utilize fee credits and/or reimbursements from the various agencies, including the City of Temecula, to directly off -set the costs expended by the developer. Some of these credits and reimbursements are outlined in the Development Agreement described below. The Master Developer and the City of Temecula will enter into a Development Agreement for Altair Specific Plan and Related Entitlements to enable adequate and timely funding of the infrastructure necessary to Altair's success. The Agreement will outline public and private improvement cost responsibilities, project related costs, credits and/or reimbursements and corresponding agencies. The Development Agreement lays out the timing of infrastructure improvements relative to project phasing. A Community Finance District (CFD) will be formed which will include special taxes to fund public infrastructure related to the project as well as the projected annual deficit for the cost of City Services. 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments A. The City and owners estimate that the increased costs to the City of providing public safety and other municipal services to the area resulting from the General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan, and change of zone for the Project will substantially exceed the municipal revenue from the Project ("City Services Deficit"). The City has received a Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated as of September, 2017 ("FIA"), documenting the City Services Deficit. The owners of the property within the Project, and their successors of interest, shall pay the City the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars ($237.00) per residential dwelling unit within the Project area that is an Occupied Residential Property, each year as mitigation for the City Services Deficit, with an increase in such payment each fiscal year in an amount of five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the previous year's payment. ESE PLAN November 2017 11-9 IMPLEMENTATION 11 11-10 8. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the City Services Deficit payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee A. In order to facilitate local wildlife conservation efforts, each Occupied Residential Property in the Specific Plan area shall pay Forty -Three Dollars (543.00) per dwelling unit per year, to be increased each fiscal year by a percentage equal to two percent (2%) of the prior year's payment, to fund the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee for Wildlife Conservation Costs. R. For the purposes of this provision, "Occupied Residential Property" means an assessor's parcel in the Specific Plan area for which a building permit for residential construction and a certificate of occupancy or final inspection has been issued. C. The proceeds of the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be used for the following purposes ("Wildlife Conservation Costs"): (1) The initial six million dollars (56,000,000.00) of the Initial Wildlife Conservation Fee and the Wildlife Conservation Fee shall be held in an account by the City for the purposes of acquiring one hundred (100) acres of conservation lands within the Special Linkage Area south of the Property and/or in Riverside County and within ten (10) miles of the Property. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, a Joint Powers Agency formed under Government Code section 6500 et seq. ("RCA") shall acquire such land and City shall reimburse RCA for the cost of its land purchase and associated closing costs, with interest, from the initial 56,000,000.00. The land acquisitions shall be in accordance with the equivalency standards for the acquisition of land submitted to the RCA and the City prior to the City Council's approval of the Project. Once this objective has been satisfied, then the City shall use such funding thereafter for one or more of the conservation activities described below in subsections (2), (3) or (4). The interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year. Owner, its successors to the property within the Project, including End Users, shall fulfill this obligation of the Specific Plan with the proceeds of Special Tax C of the CFD(s), provided, however, that the obligation under this Section and Section 11.9 of the Specific Plan remains regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it or whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. November 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN It J 11 IMPLEMENTATION (2) An engineering feasibility study to be prepared by the City in conjunction with the RCA along Interstate 15 between the Property and the San Diego County Line whose purpose is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway in order to allow wildlife (including mountain lion) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions; and/or (3) Reimbursement to the RCA of its costs, with interest, for the acquisition of lands south of the Project for conservation (the interest rate for the reimbursement shall be compound annual interest at the rate equal to the average interest rate paid on deposits in the State Local Agency Investment Fund, Government Code Sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, during the year prior to July 1 of each year); and/or (4) Other wildlife conservation efforts, (1) within Riverside County; and (ii) within ten (10) miles of the Project Site undertaken by the City or RCA. (5) Owner shall not be entitled to any fee credits in connection with such conservation funding. D. The owners and their successors to the property within the Project may fulfill this obligation through the levy of an annual special tax of a community facilities district established by the City pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq.; provided, however, the obligation of each owner and their successors to pay the Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee payment under this obligation remains an obligation of the owners and their successors regardless of the financing mechanism used to pay it and regardless of whether there is a financing mechanism to pay it. 11.10 Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this specific plan, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these requirements and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. °PECI°IC PLAN November 2017 10.15 Multifamily Walk -Up 10.16 Multifamily Podium 10.17 Micro -Units 10.18 Mixed -Use 10.19 Iconic Tower 10.20 Civic Buildings / Nature Center 10.21 School Buildiings 10.22 Community Buildings 11 IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Regulations that Administer the Specific Plan 11.2 Capital Improvements 11.3 Phasing 11.4 Maintenance 11.5 Density Transfer 11.6 Lot Reconfiguration or Consolidation 11.7 Financing Strategies 11.8 Services Deficit Fiscal Impact Payments 11.9 Annual Wildlife Conservation Fee 11.10 Severability APPENDICES Appendix A - Plant Lists PEC FIC PLAN November 2017 10-51 10-55 10-58 10-60 10-63 10-64 10-66 10-68 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS v Altair Development Agreement Section change to 4.4.50), Onsite Conservation revised to more accurately identify the lot numbers (in the appropriate tract phase) for permanent conservation. 4.4.5. Open Space Acquisition and Conservation. OWNER agrees to contribute to and construct several conservation features as part of the Project that will further aid in the conservation of sensitive habitats and the enhancement of wildlife movement and genetic diversity of mountain lions in the region. These conservation features are: (i) Onsite Conservation. OWNER shall convey to the Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") for permanent conservation Lot 8 of Tentative Tract Map 36959- 1, Lot 25 of Tentative Tract Map 36959-2, Lot 20 of Tentative Tract Map 36959-3, and Lots 8 and 9 of Tentative Tract Map 36959, consisting of approximately 84.60 acres. Lot 10 of Tentative Tract Map 36959 may also be conveyed to the RCA subject to the provisions in Section 4.4.3 herein, which would then result in approximately 87.20 acres. Randi Joh! From: Aaron Adams Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:57 AM To: Peter Thorson; Randi Johl Cc: Luke Watson; Matt Peters; Greg Butler Subject: FW: Altair Project: Protest MCC - Original Message From: Aaron Adams Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:56 AM To: 'Brent Morris' < ; Greg Butler <greg.butler@TemeculaCA.gov> Subject: RE: Altair Project: Protest Received. Will make sure it is shared with the Mayor and City Council and part of administrative record. Original Message From: Brent Morris [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:38 AM To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Greg Butler <greg.butler@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Altair Project: Protest Good Afternoon, I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the AltAir Project. As a resident of Temecula, I strongly disagree with the AftAir project. In the past 5 years, the planning and development has been sub -par and the design of the developments have been poorly negotiated in the developers' favor. As a result of the Council members poor decisions, the community has suffered as a result of unsustainable population growth which has severely impacted our schools, infrastructure and quality of life. This is unacceptable. The bottom-line should not be based on profits. Instead the focus should primarily be on the Quality of life. It is very troubling council members are not holding the values they promised during their campaign.. The Alt Air project does not benefit the community as a whole, instead it compounds the issues the City has neglected in the past. Sustaining one of the greatest droughts in State history and controlling record fires should be the City's primary focused. Why is the City not looking out for it's residents. The constant increase in water rates and utilities should not be the burden on it's residents as a result of the poor negotiations by the City's developments. Please forward my concerns to the Council members. Kind Regards, Brent Morris t Randi Johl From: Aaron Adams Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:53 PM To: Randi Johl; Peter Thorson Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 19. December 12, 2017, Council Meeting: Altair specific Plan Attachments: 1560192-18CPAXXXXjt Comments FE1R Altair Specific Plan_20171211.pdf; ATT00001.htm Sent from my iPad Aaron Adams Begin forwarded message: From: Betsy Lowrey <betsy.lowrey(a�temeculaca.gov> Date: December 11, 2017 at 8:12:26 PM PST To: Luke Watson <luke.watson(a,temeculaca.gov>, Greg Butler <greg.butler(c�temeculaca.gov>, Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Council Assistant <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 19. December 12, 2017, Council Meeting: Altair specific Plan Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cleary -Rose, Karin" <karin Cleary -rose @@,fws.gov> Date: December 11, 2017 at 7:38:08 PM PST To:<iames.stewart(@,temeculaca.gov>, Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@citycouncil.org>, <jeffcomerchero@citycouncil.org>, Mike Naggar <mnaggar @ citycouncil.org>, "Edwards, Maryann"<maryann.edwards@citycouncil.org>, <council.assistant@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Heather Pert <Heather.Pert@wildlife.ca.gov>, Shawn Nicholson <shawn nicholson@,fws.gov>, Mendel Stewart <mendel stewart(aifws.gov> Subject: Agenda Item 19. December 12, 2017, Council Meeting: Altair specific Plan Mayor Edwards and Councilpersons, Please find the Wildlife Agencies Comments attached. A hard copy will not follow unless requested. Thank you, Karin Cleary -Rose 1 Inland Division Chief U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, CA 92220 (760) 322 2070 ext 406 - Please note new extension. 2 U.H. YOB • WILDLIFE SERVICE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, California 92262 760-322-2070 FAX 760-322-4648 CALIFORNIA AVM' FISH LI WILDLIFE California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, California 91764 909-484-0167 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW-W RIV-1580192-18CPAXXXX December 11, 2017 Sent by email Mayor Maryann Edwards City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Subject: Agenda Item 19 for December 12, 2017 City Council Meeting: Altair Specific Plan Dear Mayor Edwards and Councilmembers: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, collectively the Wildlife Agencies, are providing the following comments on the Altair Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). We recognize that the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has issued a letter on December7, 2017 documenting the change in MSHCP implementation strategy for the project. We applaud the work done by the RCA, City, and Project Proponent to resolve issues with the project's MSHCP consistency. We support the approach described in the RCA's letter, and are seeking additional clarification and follow up on the items below. Additionally, the Wildlife Agencies have not seen the agreed upon equivalency analysis, and request that the project be continued one month until we have reviewed and approved the equivalency analysis. We remind the City that while the MSHCP contemplates the flexibility in implementation represented in the RCA's letter via the Criteria Refinement Process, the MSHCP gives the Wildlife Agencies approval of conservation exchanges outside of the criteria area. A continuance would also provide time for the items below to be addressed. 1. Project Subunit Analysis and Impacts on Reserve Assembly a. Our calculation is that the conservation shortfall from the proposed development is approximately 165 acres. We appreciate that Project Applicant and City have identified a path to address this shortfall and make the MSHCP whole. However, the 165 acres was an estimate based on older project information, which may not accurately represent the actual project impacts. i. There needs to be an accounting of the project impacts and conservation achieved from the project for the Criteria Cell Analysis. We request that the City, Project Applicant, RCA, and Wildlife Agencies meet and identify a final accounting of projects impacts and conservation shortfall. 2. Reserve Assembly and Replacement Acreage. a. The proposed solution to resolving the acreage 165 -acre shortfall is for the Project Applicant to purchase 66 -acres and the RCA will purchase approximately 100 acres replacement acres to make up the difference. The RCA will be reimbursed Mayor Edwards (F W S/CDF W- W R I V-15 B0192 -18C PAXXXX) 2 with interest from the CFD funds for the replacement acres. The Wildlife Agencies have the following request to ensure consistency with the MSHCP. i. Approval and review the replacement acres. ii. Condition the project so that no blading or ground disturbance is allowed on Phase 3 until the replacement acres are secure. iii. The Project cannot cause the MSHCP Rough -step unit 5 to be out of step for coastal sage scrub. 3. Linkages and Mountain Lion Movement a. The Wildlife Agencies find the FEIR responses to mountain lion movement and linkages inadequate as they rely on weak tools to evaluate project impact, do not evaluate project impacts relative to existing conditions and provide insufficient mitigation measures. The Wildlife Agencies strongly urge the City and Project Applicant to use relevant scientific mountain lion information and wildlife movement models to adequately address project impacts to Proposed Linkage 10. We request that appropriate measures to minimize impacts to mountain lions are implemented such as: i. We still recommend and request the elimination of Village G and the Nature Center from the development footprint. Village G only provides 130 units and represent approximately 7% of the total units yet results in disproportionally large acres of grading for 7 -acre pad. Those 130 units can be absorbed into the Villages in earlier project Phases without affecting the description of the Specific Plan or its environmental analysis. The development in Village G and south parcel areas could then be subtracted from the area the RCA is going to purchase. Notably, the south parcel and Village G also support coastal sage scrub, which would help the City maintain Rough Step. ii. Adopt measures to protect the critical linkage/ movement area near the Temescal Creek crossing and adjacent stream areas from trespassers and associated degradation by conditioning the project to provide enforcement and fencing/gates on the South Parcel. If the specific Plan is adopted as proposed, we request that the City begin regular park patrol of the area and control access to the site immediately after project adoption. iii. Any developed trails on the south parcel should coincide with MSHCP covered trails and those that do not must be included in the total Project impact acreage. iv. The City should commit to preventing re-establishment of homeless encampments under and around the Temescal Creek crossing to protect Mayor Edwards (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-1560192-18CPAXXXX) 3 the function of that crossing and reduce the human presence around the crossing. v. Use the CFD funds for public education about the conservation areas and specifically mountain lions. vi. Use the CFD funds to provide funding to replace livestock taken by mountain lions or improve fencing or enclosures for livestock in Subunit 6. 4. Pond Turtle a. The Wildlife Agencies disagree with the unsupported project statement that the upland habitat does not provide important nesting habitat for Pond Turtles. The RCA monitoring program has tracked turtles that use habitat with steep slopes for nesting in Western Riverside County. We have the following requests: i. Reduce project impacts to the South Parcel by finding another location to store dirt. The stored dirt will smother existing vegetation and destroy upland nesting habitat for pond turtle. ii. Reduce the excess dirt generated by the project by eliminating Village G. iii. Identify an alternate location for dirt storage. iv. Reduce the amount of dirt stored on the site by placing some on the disturbed areas on the eastern edge of Murrieta Creek on city -owned property. This could also be shaped to form a berm near the interchange to mitigate lighting from the interchange. v. If the southern parcel is used to store dirt the project should restore slopes adjacent to the South Parcel so that pond turtle can use the upland habitat for nesting. These areas should be protected from disturbance and habitat degradation by limiting or removing trails. vi. Conserve habitat on the west side of the Murrieta Creek to make up for the loss of upland pond turtle habitat from the Altair Site. 5. San Diego Ambrosia Population. a. The project as proposed, affects the single largest San Diego Ambrosia population in Southern California. The affected Ambrosia population is in area that is described for MSHCP conservation. The FEIR stipulates translocation of the Ambrosia population, but provides no specifics regarding methods or success criteria. i. We request that the Ambrosia translocation plan be approved by the RCA and Wildlife Agencies prior to ground disturbance. it The Ambrosia translocation should occur in the first appropriate season after Wildlife Agency and RCA approval of the Translocation plan. Mayor Edwards (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-1560192-18CPAXXXX) 4 Agreed upon success criteria should be met prior to groundbreaking on Phase III. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the FEIR and reiterate our request that the FEIR not be adopted until there is a final accounting of project impacts and we have review the equivalency analysis, as required by the MSHCP. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Karin Cleary -Rose of the Service at 760 322 2070 ext. 406 or Heather Pert of the Department at heather.pert@wildlife.ca.gov. Heather can also be reached at 858 395 9692. Sincerely, KARIN , G E'ARY-ROSEtally d by KARIN CLEARY-ROSE -0800017.12."'932:53 for Kennon A. Corey Assistant Field Supervisor Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: Laurie Correa, RCA tof Leslie MacNair Inland Deserts Region Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Randi Johl From: Randi Johl Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 4:31 PM To: 'Gene Wunderlich'; Aaron Adams; Greg Butler; James Stewart; Jeff Comerchero; Maryann Edwards; Matt Rahn; Mike Naggar Cc: Judy Zulfigar; Luke Watson; Matt Peters; Peter Thorson Subject: RE: Altair Project Thank you Gene — your comments were received for the record. Randi Johl, JD, MMC City Clerk, City of Temecula ( Legislative Director, California City Clerks Association randi. iohl(Wtemeculaca.gov 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 O Sr e 4Laltikr Community Pride Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Gene Wunderlich [mailto:genewunderlich@srcar.org] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 3:56 PM To: Aaron Adams <aaron.adams@temeculaca.gov>; Greg Butler <greg.butler@temeculaca.gov>; James Stewart <James.Stewart@TemeculaCA.gov>; Jeff Comerchero <jcomerchero@citycouncil.org>; Maryann Edwards <Maryann.Edwards@citycouncil.org>; Matt Rahn <matt.rahn@TemeculaCA.gov>; Mike Naggar <mnaggar@citycouncil.org>; Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov>; Randi Johl <randi.johl@temeculaca.gov> Cc: Judy Zulfigar <judy@watermarkassociates.com> Subject: Altair Project Members of the City Council, Unfortunately I will not be able to join you tomorrow during your review of the Altair Project but I wanted to provide some comments in support of the project for inclusion into the record. As you are aware, the State of California, as well as our local region, is suffering a severe housing crisis brought about by a decade when few homes were being built. It is estimated that today we are approximately 1,000,000 homes short of what we require to house our growing population. There are numerous reasons for this, starting with the housing recession back in 2009-2010, increasing regulations at the state level, increasing fees including local DIF and TUMF, a shortage of construction workers, and increasing NIMBY action. In spite of the fact that the City of Temecula, and most other local cities, have continued slow progress toward build -out, the effect of the housing shortage is most noticeable in a lack of inventory. In November, Temecula had just two months supply of re -sale homes on the market with many of those being higher end properties. This lack of availability is a major factor in the median price escalation we've experience the past five years, which has had a multiplier affect. That means we not only have fewer homes for buyers, but we have fewer affordable homes on the market. This lack of affordable housing impacts our local workforce most deleteriously 1 - our teachers, public safety, veterans and our children, who have all but given up on the dream of owning a home in California. That's why I am in full support of the Altair Project as presented. I have had the opportunity to review their plans and believe this project is the right project, in the right place, and at the right time. The mix of single and multi -family homes addresses the demand of buyers coming to our area. The price point is another factor in providing an entry -to -mid-level product that should prove very attractive to those Millenials just entering the market for the first time, to young families and to retirees. The inclusion of parks, a school, and the overall walkability of the design makes it even more appealing to the targeted demographic and a good fit for the City. The project design is also attractive from an aesthetic perspective. It doesn't dominate the hillside, it won't be an eyesore, and it leaves 80% of the hillside as natural habitat. Even the walkways and roadway have been designed in such a way as to minimize visual blight while preserving the natural landscape and enhancing the view from downtown. It appears the developer has been most accommodating and considerate in advancing this particular plan. Over the years I've seen other plans for 'the Firestone property that, while defensible from a zoning perspective and would have added more homes, were not nearly as attractive and would have had a far greater impact on the habitat and view. Even the Western Bypass has been scaled back to a very modest impact on the entire western ridge line. I know you'll hear from an assortment of NIMBY's (Not In My Backyard) and BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and those are your constituents as well. We heard from some of them the evening of the Planning Commission review - folks who moved here a scant five years ago and now want to grab the welcome mat off the front door. There are times when I sympathize with them. It was easier to get around 30 years ago before most of them came. We might have had to drive to Escondido or Riverside if we wanted to buy shoes, but the traffic wasn't bad. We could get from one side of town to the other in 10 minutes - that was convenient. And it's true that traffic has become a major headache in the region right now and there is a point to t